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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 August 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 21 and 22 are currently amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1, 2, 9-16 and 18-24 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
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 21 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 21 recites the limitation "the linear carboxylate" on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 and Japanese Patent Publication No. H10-116627, hereinafter Shoji.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
205
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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% (≈ 44 vol%) (paragraph [0057]). EP’s structure is given by:
That is, EP is represented by instantly claimed formula II, but in EP R21 and R22 are C2 alkyl groups, rather than haloalkyl groups.
Lim fails to teach that: 1) the cylindrical can (“shell”) is metal; and 2) the R21 and R22 groups are haloalkyl groups.
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), Shoji teaches using a fluorinated linear carboxylate as a solvent in the electrolyte of a lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0001, 0007]). Specifically, Shoji teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate is represented by the general formula R1COOR2, where R1 and R2 may be the same or different and each includes 1 to 3 carbon atoms in which all the hydrogen atoms are substituted with fluorine (paragraph [0007]). This is the same as the instantly claimed formula II. Shoji explicitly enumerates the compound CF3 CF2 COO CF2 CF3 (paragraph [0008]), which is the fully fluorinated version of Lim’s ethyl propionate (EP) (CH3 CH2 COO CH2 CH3). Shoji further teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate is used in a mixture with conventionally known solvents such as the linear carbonate DMC at a concentration of greater than 10% by volume (paragraphs [0009, 0010]). Shoji also teaches that the lithium salt in the electrolyte may be a sulfonylimide and a hexafluorophosphate (paragraph [0014]). Shoji teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate reacts with lithium to form a layer on the negative active material that has better lithium ion conductivity and thus achieves a high charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Lim’s EP with the fully fluorinated version for the purpose of achieving a high charge-discharge efficiency in Lim’s battery.
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_image2.png
80
138
media_image2.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 and Japanese Patent Publication No. H10-116627, hereinafter Shoji 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 Lim 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 Lim, 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 and Japanese Patent Publication No. H10-116627, hereinafter Shoji 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. 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 Japanese Patent Publication No. H10-116627, hereinafter Shoji.
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 teaches that the electrolyte comprises various linear carboxylates as solvents (paragraph [0034]). Lim’s linear carboxylates (methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, methyl propionate, ethyl propionate) are represented by instantly claimed formula II, but with R21 and R22 groups that are C1-C3 alkyl groups, rather than haloalkyl groups.
Lim fails to teach: 1) that the cylindrical can (“shell”) is metal; 2) that the sulfonylimide includes one of the claimed anions; and 3) that the R21 and R22 groups are haloalkyl groups.
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_image3.png
60
181
media_image3.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.
Regarding 3), Shoji teaches using a fluorinated linear carboxylate as a solvent in the electrolyte of a lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0001, 0007]). Specifically, Shoji teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate is represented by the general formula R1COOR2, where R1 and R2 may be the same or different and each includes 1 to 3 carbon atoms in which all the hydrogen atoms are substituted with fluorine (paragraph [0007]). Shoji also teaches that the lithium salt in the electrolyte may be a sulfonylimide and a hexafluorophosphate (paragraph [0014]). Shoji teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate reacts with lithium to form a layer on the negative active material that has better lithium ion conductivity and thus achieves a high charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Lim’s linear carboxylates with their fully fluorinated versions for the purpose of achieving a high charge-discharge efficiency in Lim’s battery.
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, Electrochimica Acta, 280, pp 290-299, hereinafter Zhang and Japanese Patent Publication No. H10-116627, hereinafter Shoji.
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.
PNG
media_image4.png
170
288
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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% (≈ 44 vol%) (paragraph [0057]). EP’s structure is given by:
That is, EP is represented by instantly claimed formula II, but in EP R21 and R22 are C2 alkyl groups, rather than haloalkyl groups.
Lim fails to teach that: 1) the cylindrical can (“shell”) is metal; 2) the sulfonylimide includes one of the claimed anions; and 3) the R21 and R22 groups are haloalkyl groups.
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.
Regarding 3), Shoji teaches using a fluorinated linear carboxylate as a solvent in the electrolyte of a lithium ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0001, 0007]). Specifically, Shoji teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate is represented by the general formula R1COOR2, where R1 and R2 may be the same or different and each includes 1 to 3 carbon atoms in which all the hydrogen atoms are substituted with fluorine (paragraph [0007]). This is the same as the instantly claimed formula II. Shoji explicitly enumerates the compound CF3 CF2 COO CF2 CF3 (paragraph [0008]), which is the fully fluorinated version of Lim’s ethyl propionate (EP) (CH3 CH2 COO CH2 CH3). Shoji further teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate is used in a mixture with conventionally known solvents such as the linear carbonate DMC at a concentration of greater than 10% by volume (paragraphs [0009, 0010]). Shoji also teaches that the lithium salt in the electrolyte may be a sulfonylimide and a hexafluorophosphate (paragraph [0014]). Shoji teaches that the fluorinated linear carboxylate reacts with lithium to form a layer on the negative active material that has better lithium ion conductivity and thus achieves a high charge-discharge efficiency of the battery (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Lim’s EP with the fully fluorinated version for the purpose of achieving a high charge-discharge efficiency in Lim’s battery.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. H10-116627, hereinafter Shoji in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0214073, hereinafter Iwaya.
Regarding claim 21, Shoji teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0007]). The battery comprises an electrolyte. The electrolyte comprises a conventional electrolytic salt and explicitly recites the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and the symmetric sulfonylimide LiN(CF3SO2)2 (LiTFSI) (paragraphs [0011, 0014]).
Shoji teaches that the electrolyte further comprises a fluorinated linear carboxylate represented by the general formula R1COOR2, where R1 and R2 may be the same or different and each includes 1 to 3 carbon atoms in which all the hydrogen atoms are substituted with fluorine (paragraph [0007]). This is the same as the instantly claimed formula II.
Shoji fails to teach that the sulfnonylimide includes one of the claimed anions, the molar concentrations of the salts, that the battery is cylindrical and a metal shell.
PNG
media_image3.png
60
181
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 is a combination of LiPF6 and various symmetric sulfonylimides including LiTFSI and the sulfonylimide lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide (LiBETI) (paragraph [0027]). The anion in LiBETI is represented by the instantly claimed formula:
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]). 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 for the purpose of achieving optimal ion conductivity and stability of the electrolyte (paragraph [0034, 0035]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the combination of LiPF6 and LiBETI, with a total molar concentration of the electrolytic salt in the range 0.5 M to 2 M and a ratio of the molar concentration of LiBETI to LiPF6 in the range 0.01 to 10 for the purpose of achieving optimal ion conductivity, handleability and stability of the electrolyte. It would further have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the battery cell in a cylindrical shape and to select metal for the battery case as these are customarily used shape and type of case for lithium-ion battery cells.
The optimum ranges of Shoji as modified by Iwaya 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combinations of the Lim, Hwangbo and Shoji references, the Lim, Hwangbo, Lee and Shoji references, the Lim, Hwangbo, Lee, Zhang and Shoji references and the Shoji and Iwaya references have 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 NEDIALKOVA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights