www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/975,870
`
`08/26/2020
`
`Satoshi Nishitani
`
`P200787US00
`
`8117
`
`WHDA, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`HAMMOND,KRISHNA R
`
`1728
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/15/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentmail @ whda.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/975,870
`Nishitani etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`KRISHNA R HAMMOND
`1728
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 5/15/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-5 and 7-12 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected.
`1) Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 08/26/2020 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230728
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis forall
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`Apatent for a claimed invention maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as setforth insection 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior artare 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
`ordinaryskill inthe art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe
`negated by the manner in whichthe 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.
`
`Claims 1-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`Minami, et. al., US 20170309950 Ai (hereinafter, Minami), and further in view of Hallac,
`
`et. al., US 2016/0149263 A1 (hereinafter, Hallac), and Kinpara et al., US 20170025230
`
`Al (hereinafter, Kinpara).
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Minami teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte used ina
`
`secondary battery with a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a binder. Minami
`
`at [0018, 25-29]. Minami teachesthat this negative electrode contains an active material
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 3
`
`contains silicon particles (which facilitates more intercalation oflithium) and an
`
`“electrically conductive layer” which mayinclude graphite.
`
`/d. Minami teachesthat the
`
`binder of the negative electrode active material may be an acrylic resin.
`
`/ad. Minami also
`
`teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte which contains an electrolyte salt, which is preferably
`
`lithium salt, and includes LiPFe. Minami at [0050, 54]. However, Minami does not teach
`
`the use oflithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LIFSI) as a lithium salt in the non-aqueous
`
`solvent.
`
`/d. Minami does not teach the massrelationship (in the amended Claim 1,
`
`reflected in parts by mass per 100 parts of mass) of 0.4 — 1.5 parts by mass of acrylic
`
`resin per 100 parts of the negative electrode active material. Examiner notes that
`
`expressed as a percentage relationship to the total (assuming 100 parts of negative
`
`electrode active material), this is ~0.4% - 1.5%.
`
`However, Minami does teach that SBR, used as a binder, was mixed in a
`
`30:70:1:1: ratio with electrode active material P1, graphite, carboxymethylcellulose
`
`(CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR). This indicates that Minami teaches a
`
`mass relationship of 30:1, or about 3.33 parts by mass of binder per 100 parts of the
`
`negative electrode active material.
`
`Hallac teaches an electrolyte comprising a solvent mixture andalithium salt,
`
`specified as LiIFSI, or LiFSI and otherlithium salts. Hallac at [0009, 55-57]. Hallac
`
`teaches the solvent mixture and LiFSI are “configured to enhance the low temperature
`
`performanceof the lithium ion battery cell at operating temperatures below 0°C,” and
`
`further specifies that the use of LIFSI as the main conductoroflithium ions “may result
`
`in enhanced conductivity at relatively low temperatures,” as well as improved
`
`temperature stability and lower electrolyte resistance.
`
`/d. Hallac does not teach the use
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 4
`
`of an acrylic resin or a specific binder structure.
`
`/d. Hallac does not teach the mass
`
`relationship (in the amended Claim 1, reflected in parts by mass per 100 parts of mass)
`
`of 0.4 — 1.5 parts by mass of acrylic resin per 100 parts of the negative electrode active
`
`material.
`
`Kinpara teaches a negative electrode, wherein a conductive assistant, a binder,
`
`and electrode active material comprise an electrode mixture. Kinpara at [0017-25, 82].
`
`Kinpara further teaches that the conductive assistant is 0.1-30% by mass relative to the
`
`total of conductive assistant, binder, and electrode active material, the binder used is
`
`0.5%- 30% by mass. /d. This implies an embodiment wherein the binder, assistant, and
`
`electrode active material are in a relationship of 0.5 : 0.1 : 99.4. This produces a
`
`relationship between the negative electrode active material and binder wherein
`
`(assuming just 99.9 total parts, subtracting the assistant out) the binder usedis 0.5%
`
`relative to the negative electrode active material. This is within the range taught by
`
`Claim 1.
`
`Kinpara teaches that, for a water-based binder, acrylic resins may be used, and
`
`that said acrylic resin may be sodium acrylate, an alkali metal neutralized product of
`
`ethylene unsaturated carboxylic acid. Kinpara at [0072-73, 132]. The alkali metal may
`
`be substituted with lithium, and the acrylate may be (meth)acrylate, meaning thatlithium
`
`(meth)acrylate may be the acrylic resin. Id. Kinpara teachesthat this binder may provide
`
`similar advantages to PTFE or sodium acrylate.
`
`/d. As such, Kinpara thusly teaches, in
`
`addition to the mass relationship, that this binder is an acrylic resin.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the nonaqueous
`
`electrolyte of Minami with Hallac’s teaching of LiFSI as a lithium salt in a non-aqueous
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 5
`
`solvent of an electrolyte because they would appreciate the advantage of improving
`
`conductivity, stability, and resistance. Hallac, at [0009, 55-57].
`
`This modification teaches the following claim terms:
`
`“A non-aqueouselectrolyte secondary comprising a positive electrode,a
`
`negative electrode, and an electrolyte, the negative electrode including a negative
`
`electrode active material capable of electrochemically absorbing and releasing
`
`lithium, and a binder; the negative electrode active material including a Si-
`
`containing material; the binder including an acrylic resin; the electrolyte
`
`including a non-aqueoussolvent, and a lithium salt dissolved in the non-
`
`aqueoussolvent; the lithium salt including lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide :LFSI;
`
`and the acrylic resin is contained in the negative electrode in an amount of 0.4 parts by
`
`mass or more and 1.5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the negative
`
`electrode active material.”
`
`This modification of Minami does not teach the acrylic resin relationship.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the
`
`modification of Minami such that the acrylic resin binder of modified Minami
`
`is in the
`
`mass relationship taught for the acrylic resin binder of Kinpara, because Kinpara
`
`teaches a benefit to using (meth)acrylate as a resin, and because the case where the
`
`claimed ranges “overlap orlie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
`
`This modified Minami covers the previously bolded claim terms, as well as:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 6
`
`“the acrylic resin is contained in the negative electrode in an amountof 0.4
`
`parts by mass or more and 1.5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the
`
`negative electrode active material.”
`
`As such, Claim 1
`
`is obvious over Minami, further in light of Hallac.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. As discussed previously, the negative
`
`active material of Minami includes an electrically conductive layer which may include
`
`graphite, a carbon material. Minami at [0025-29]. Claim 2 further recites “wherein the
`
`negative electrode active material further includes a carbon material.” As such, Claim 2
`
`is obvious over Minami, and further in light of Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 depends on Claim 2. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 2. Minami teaches that the negative
`
`electrode active material includesalithium silicate phase with silicon particles in said
`
`phase. Minami at [0012]. This includes silicon dioxide, which is preferably “less than
`
`10% by mass, more preferably less than 7% by mass. /d. Claim 3 recites, “wherein a
`
`ratio of the carbon material to a total of the Si-containing material and the carbon
`
`material is 98% or less.”
`
`Becausethesilicon particles of Hallac may be 10%or less by mass, a 2%Si
`
`mass% is encompassed by the range disclosed by Hallac. An overlapping range
`
`supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,
`
`191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to
`
`further modify the modification of Minami with the teachings of the primary reference.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 7
`
`Minami at [0012]. As such, Claim 3 is obvious over Minami, further in light of Hallac and
`
`Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach the use of
`
`(meth)acrylic salt in the acrylic resin of the binder, but does teach the use of PTFE and
`
`acrylic resins generally. Minami at [0022].
`
`Kinpara teaches that, for a water-based binder, acrylic resins may be used, and
`
`that said acrylic resin may be sodium acrylate, an alkali metal neutralized product of
`
`ethylene unsaturated carboxylic acid. Kinpara at [0072-73, 132]. The alkali metal may
`
`be substituted with lithium, and the acrylate may be (meth)acrylate, meaning thatlithium
`
`(meth)acrylate may be the acrylic resin. Id. Kinpara teachesthat this binder may provide
`
`similar advantages to PTFE or sodium acrylate.
`
`Id. Kinpara teaches that “a binder for
`
`an electric double-layer capacitor electrode according to the present invention includes
`
`a copolymer of vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal-neutralized product of ethylene-
`
`unsaturated carboxylic acid as a constitutional repeating unit.” /d. at [0032 - 36]. This is
`
`further specified that “Examples of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid ester may
`
`include ... t-butyl ester of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid. Among them, methyl acrylate
`
`or methyl methacrylate is suitably used for easy progression of saponification.” This
`
`indicates a repeating unit of methacrylic acid salt is taught by Kinpara.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the
`
`modification of Minami with the repeating (meth) acrylic acid salt of Kinpara to arrive at
`
`the “repeating unit of a methacrylic acid salt’, because Kinpara disclosesthat it captures
`
`the same advantages of the use of other carboxylic acids or PTFE, which is disclosed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 8
`
`as an option by the primary reference. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`appreciate that lithium (meth)acrylate would capture the same benefits as the disclosed
`
`resin materials of the primary references. Thus, Claim 4 is obvious over Minami, further
`
`in light of Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 depends on Claim 4. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 4. Minami does not teach the use of
`
`(meth)acrylic salt in the acrylic resin of the binder, but does teach the use of PTFE and
`
`acrylic resins generally. Minami at [0022].
`
`Kinpara teaches that, for a water-based binder, acrylic resins may be used, and
`
`that said acrylic resin may be sodium acrylate, an alkali metal neutralized product of
`
`ethylene unsaturated carboxylic acid. Kinpara at [0072-73, 132]. The alkali metal may
`
`be substituted with lithium, and the acrylate may be (meth)acrylate, meaning thatlithium
`
`(meth)acrylate may be the acrylic resin.
`
`Id. Kinpara teaches that this binder may provide
`
`similar advantages to PTFE or sodium acrylate.
`
`Id.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the
`
`modification of Minami with lithium (meth) acrylate of Kinpara to arrive at the “lithium salt
`
`of methacrylic acid’, because Kinpara disclosesthat it captures the same advantages of
`
`the use of other carboxylic acids or PTFE, which is disclosed as an option by the
`
`primary reference. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate thatlithium
`
`(meth)acrylate would capture the same benefits as the disclosed resin materials of the
`
`primary references. Thus, Claim 5 is obvious over Minami, further in light of Hallac and
`
`Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 9
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami teaches the use of LiPFs as a
`
`lithium salt, but does not teach the use of LIFSI. Minami at [0054]. Hallac teaches that
`
`“LIFSI may be used in conjunction with other lithium salts, such as LiPFe.” Hallac at
`
`[0026]. Hallac further notes, “In the present disclosure, it is believed that particular
`
`combinations of low-viscosity solvents, additives, and lithium salts as set forth above
`
`may unexpectedly improve the performance andstability of individual electrodes and
`
`overall battery cells, particularly at low temperature (e.g., -30° C.).” /d.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the
`
`modification of Minami with the use of LiPFe as an additional
`
`lithium salt, because the
`
`primary reference teaches the use of LiPFe as well as the modifying reference of the
`
`original modification. Hallac at [0026]; Minami at [0054]. Further, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would appreciate a benefit in the improvement of performance and stability at
`
`low temperatures by using “combinations of low-viscosity solvents.” /d. As such, Claim
`
`7 is obvious over Minami and further in light of Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 depends on Claim 7. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 7. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentration of the lithium salt(s). Hallac teaches “the total amountoflithium salts may
`
`vary between 0.5 molar (M) and 2.0 M.” Hallac at [0054].
`
`An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness, and here,
`
`0.5M —2.0M completely encompassesthe Claim 8 range of 1 mol/L — 2 mol/L (note:
`
`molarity or molar, (M), represents molesof solute / liters of solution, making this
`
`equivalent despite different notation). See, e.g., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191
`
`USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Hallac at [0054]. Oneof ordinary skill in the art would be aware
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 10
`
`of the aforementioned benefit of improved stability and performance and low
`
`temperatures when using a “combination of low-viscosity solvents.” Hallac at [0026]. As
`
`such, Claim 8 is obvious over Minami, further in light of Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 depends on Claim 7. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 7. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentrations of the lithium salts. Minami does not teach the concentrations of the
`
`lithium salts. Hallac teaches “the total amountoflithium salts may vary between 0.5
`
`molar (M) and 2.0 M.” Hallac at [0054 - 57]. Further, Hallac teaches that ina
`
`combination of salts, LIFSI may be present in a concentration between 1.0 — 2.0 M, and
`
`the remaining salts may be present in an amountof 0.2 M or less. /d. Finally,
`
`in terms of
`
`weight percentage, LiIFSI may represent 20 — 100%by weightof the lithium salts
`
`presentin the electrolyte. Hallac at [0053]. Oneof ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`aware of the aforementioned benefit of improved stability and performance and low
`
`temperatures when using a “combination of low-viscosity solvents.” Hallac at [0026]. As
`
`such, Claim 9 is obvious over Minami, further in light of Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness, and here, the
`
`ratios taught by Hallac fall within the Claim 9 ratio range of LFSI / (LFSI + LIPFe) of 7 —
`
`79 mol%. See, e.g., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Hallac
`
`at [0054-57]. For example,
`
`if the total amount of salts is 2.0M, and the total amountof
`
`LFSI is 1.0M, that is 50%; applying 50%by weight, LFSI also falls in the range.
`
`/d.
`
`Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 depends on Claim 7. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 7. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentrations of the lithium salts. Hallac teaches “the total amountoflithium salts may
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 11
`
`vary between 0.5 molar (M) and 2.0 M.” Hallac at [0054 - 57]. Further, Hallac teaches
`
`that in a combination of salts, LIFSI may be present in a concentration between 1.0 —
`
`2.0 M, and the remaining salts may be present in an amount of 0.2 M or less. /d.
`
`An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness, and here, the
`
`ratios taught by Hallac fall within the Claim 10 ratio range of 15 mol% - 50 mol%. See,
`
`e.g., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Hallac at [0054-57].
`
`For example, if the total amountof lithium salts is 2.0M, and the quantity of LIFSI is
`
`1.0M, this is 50 mol%.
`
`If the total amount of LiFSI is 0.5 and the total amountof salts is
`
`2.0M, this is 25 mol%. Oneof ordinary skill
`
`in the art would find it obvious to further
`
`modify the modification of Minami with the concentration range with Hallac, because
`
`they would be aware of the teachings of the secondary reference of the modification.
`
`Further, they would be aware of the aforementioned benefit of improved stability and
`
`performance and low temperatures when using a “combination of low-viscosity
`
`solvents.” Hallac at [0026]. As such, Claim 10 is obvious over Minami, further in light of
`
`Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 depends on Claim 7. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 7. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentrations of the lithium salts. Hallac teaches “the total amountoflithium salts may
`
`vary between 0.5 molar (M) and 2.0 M.” Hallac at [0054 - 57]. Further, Hallac teaches
`
`that in a combination of salts, LIFSI may be present in a concentration between 1.0 —
`
`2.0 M, and the remaining salts may be present in an amount of 0.2 M or less. /d. Finally,
`
`in terms of weight percentage, LIFSI may represent 20 — 100%by weight of the lithium
`
`salts present in the electrolyte. Hallac at [0053].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 12
`
`An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness, as stated
`
`previously, and when rangesfall “close” to the claimed range, a prima facie case may
`
`still apply if one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same
`
`properties. See, e.g., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
`
`Tilanium Metais Corp, of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir.
`
`7985); Hallac at [0054-57].
`
`Here, the specific ratios taught by Hallac, 0.5-2.0M LFSI
`
`and 0.2M orless “otherlithium salts” fall within or close to the Claim 11 range of 0.1 M—
`
`1.1M LFSI and 0.3 — 1.3. Further, by taking the teachings of the mass % range of 20%
`
`and 100% by weight for LFSI, we may calculate that the LiFSI / other salts percentage
`
`falls within the claimed range to meet the required percentage of LiPFse by applying the
`
`amountof the “other salts.” For example,
`
`if there are 200g oftotal lithium salts, and
`
`approximately 48.095g of LFSI, and 151.905g of LiPFe, there will be 24% LFSI in the
`
`mixture,
`
`.25M LFSI, and 1M LiPF6, which falls within the claimed range. One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify the modification of Minami with the
`
`concentration range with Hallac, because they would be aware of the teachings of the
`
`secondary reference of the modification. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`aware of the aforementioned benefit of improved stability and performance and low
`
`temperatures when using a “combination of low-viscosity solvents.” Hallac at [0026]. As
`
`such, Claim 10 is obvious over Minami, further in light of Hallac and Kinpara.
`
`Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami,
`
`and further in view of Hallac, Kinpara, and Yoshida,et. al., US 20170214087
`
`(hereinafter, Yoshida).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 13
`
`Regarding Claim 12, Claim 2 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami teaches that, in terms of the
`
`electrolyte solvent, “the use of certain low viscosity ester-based solvents and/or
`
`carbonate-based solvent blends in an electrolyte may at least partially contribute to
`
`enhanced performance at wide operating temperature rangesfor a lithium ion battery
`
`cell, including low temperature operation (e.g., below 0° C.).” Minami at [0058]. Minami
`
`does not teach the use of a chain carboxylic acid ester specifically as the non-aqueous
`
`solvent.
`
`Yoshida teaches the use of low viscosity solvents such as “open-chain carboxylic
`
`acid esters such as methyl formate, ethyl formate, methyl acetate,” and that this may
`
`improve the performance, wettability of the electrodes, and the immersion of the
`
`electrolyte solution. Yoshida at [003, 26, 60].
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the modification of
`
`Minami and the chain carboxylic acid ester solvent of Yoshida, because they would
`
`appreciate an advantage in increasing low temperature performance, wettability, and
`
`immersion. Minami at [0058]; Yoshida at [003, 26, 60]. As such, Claim 12 is obvious
`
`over Minami, further in light of Hallac, Kinpara, and Yoshida.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments, see Applicant Arguments / Remarks Made in an
`
`Amendment, filed 05/15/2023, with respect to Claim 4 have been fully considered and
`
`are persuasive. The 112 Rejection of Claim 4 has been withdrawn in view of the
`
`clarifying amendment.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 14
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, and 7-11
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive in view of the
`
`mass relationship between the acrylic resin binder and electrode taught by Kinpara,et.
`
`al. Examiner acknowledges applicant's arguments relating to the difference between
`
`Kai's binder range pertaining to resin particles within a separator, and notes that
`
`Kinpara teaches an acrylic resin binder which is mixed with the active material,
`
`conductive assistant, and water to form a slurry which in turn forms the active material
`
`layer; this is thusly “contained in the negative electrode.”
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`
`
`MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this action. In the eventafirst reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHSof 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
`
`extension fee 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 KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND, whose telephone
`
`number is (571) 272-9997. Examiner interviews are available via telephone,
`
`in-person,
`
`and video conferencing, using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 15
`
`schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview
`
`Request(AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner can normally be
`
`reached on Monday to Friday from 9AM to 6PM EST.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, MATTHEW MARTIN, can be reached at the telephone number (571) 270-
`
`7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is
`
`assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be
`
`obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status
`
`information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or
`
`Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private
`
`PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see
`
`http://portal.us pto.gov/external/portal.
`
`Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the
`
`Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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
`
`
`
`/K.R.H./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1728
`
`/MATTHEW T MARTIN
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 16
`
`