www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`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, VA22182
`
`HAMMOND,KRISHNA R
`
`1728
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/18/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time 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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-5,8 and 10-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-5,8 and 10-16 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* 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://www.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)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J 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)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) 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)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20231222
`
`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 STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof 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 12/14/2023.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) 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)(2) 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.
`
`

`

`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
`
`underthefirst 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), wasfiled 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
`
`12/14/2023 has been entered.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 1
`
`is objected to becauseof the following informalities:
`
`e Omitted word: it appears that the word “battery” is omitted from the
`
`independent Claim 1, wherein the proper preamble should read “A non-
`
`aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising ... .”). Battery is the
`
`assumed omitted word because ofits presence in the dependent claim
`
`preambles.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`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:
`
`A patent fora claimed invention may notbe obtained, notwithstanding thatthe claimed
`invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the prior artare such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`been obvious beforethe effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 3
`
`ordinary skillin the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall notbe
`negated by the mannerin whichthe invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized asfollows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the priorart.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between theprior art and the claims atissue.
`
`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, 2-3, 8, 10 - 11, 14 — 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable Minami, et. al., US 20170309950 A1 (hereinafter, Minami), and in view of
`
`Wang, et. al. (Wang, David Yaohui, et. al, Effect of Mixtures of Lithium
`
`Hexafluorophosphate (LiPFe) and Lithium Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) as Salts in
`
`LifNi173Mn1/3C01/3]O2/Graphite Pouch Cells, 2015 J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 — 169.
`
`(2015)).
`
`Minami teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary (“[0001] The present
`
`disclosure relates to a negative-electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte
`
`secondary battery, a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary
`
`battery, and a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery”; note the above objection)
`
`comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, the negative
`
`electrode including a negative electrode active material (“negative active material
`
`particle 10”) capable of electrochemically absorbing and releasing lithium (“[0029] More
`
`lithium ions can beintercalated into the silicon particles 12 of the negative-electrode
`
`active material particle 10 than into carbon materials, such as graphite” ; intercalation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 4
`
`reads upon “capable of absorbing and releasing lithium,” because intercalation and de-
`
`intercalation, the paired process, together comprise absorbing and releasing lithium
`
`ions) and a binder (“[0024] [t]he negative-electrode mixture layer preferably contains a
`
`binder as well as a negative-electrode active material’), the negative electrode active
`
`material including a Si-containing material; the binder including an acrylic resin (“[0025]
`
`Asin the positive electrode, the binder can foe a fluoropolymer, PAN, polyimide resin,
`
`acrylic resin, or polyolefin resin’); the electrolyte including a non-aqueous solvent
`
`(“[O050] [t]he non-aqueous electrolyte contains a non-aqueous solvent and an
`
`electrolyte salt dissolved in the non-aqueous solvent”), andalithium salt dissolved in
`
`the non-aqueous solvent (“[0054] The electrolyte salt is preferably a lithium salt.
`
`Examples of the lithium salt include LiIBF4 , LiClO4 , LiPFe “); the lithium salt including
`
`LiPFe. Minami at [0001, 24-25, 29, 50, 54).
`
`Minami does not teach the useoflithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LFSI), and
`
`does not teach the use of LFSI and LiPFeutilized together in a ratio of 7mol% or more
`
`and 79 mol%or less.
`
`Wangteaches the use of LFSI and LiPFe, which are utilized together because
`
`LFSI based electrodes may show corrosion when utilized with aluminum current
`
`collectors. Wang at page 162, Col. 1. Further, Wang teaches this may range from 16%
`
`LFSI (0.2 M LFSI, 1M LiPFe) to up to 70% LFSI (0.7M LFSI, 0.3 LiPFs). /o., see also Fig.
`
`1, 7. Finally, Wang teaches previous research demonstrate that the utilization of at least
`
`16% LFSI in LFSI / LiPFe mixture may effectively improve cycling stability, rate
`
`performance, and chargetransfer resistance.
`
`/d. However, Wang does not teach the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 5
`
`usage of this two salt electrolyte within a secondary battery containing a silicon-based
`
`negative electrode active material.
`
`Oneof ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify Minami with Wang,
`
`because Wang teaches a potential benefit to preventing corrosion, and improving
`
`cycling stability, rate performance, and charge transfer resistance. Further,
`
`in the case
`
`where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. As such, Claim 1
`
`is obvious
`
`over Minami, in view of Wang.
`
`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, in view of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 depends on Claim 2. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 2. Minami teachesthat in addition to the
`
`lithium silicate phase, “another active material ... may be used,” wherein the other
`
`active material may be graphite, and wherein “the carbonaceous negative-electrode
`
`active material content preferably ranges from 70% - 95% by mass.” Here,“a ratio of
`
`the carbon material to a total of the Si-containing material and the carbon material is 98
`
`mass%or less,” is taken to correspond to the mathematical relation [Carbon]/ ([Si] +
`
`[Carbon]) < 98%. Here, 95 mass %graphite, wherein the silicate phase necessarily
`
`must be less than or equal to 5% by mass =, correspondsto a ratio of 95%, which is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 6
`
`less than 98%.
`
`In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges
`
`disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
`
`As such, Claim 3 is obvious over Minami, in view of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentration of the lithium salt(s).
`
`Wangteachesa total concentration wherein the total concentration of the LFSI
`
`and the LiPFein the electrolyte is 1.2 mol /L. Wang at Fig. 1, 2, 7.
`
`As such, Claim 8 is obvious over Minami, in view of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 depends on Claim 1. The modification of
`
`Minami teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentrations of the specified lithium salts.
`
`Wangteaches the ratio of the LFSI to a total of the LFSI and the LiPFe may
`
`range from 16% LFSI (0.2 MLFSI, 1M LiPFe); and also, a value of 50% LFSI (0.5M
`
`LFSI, 0.5 LiPFe). /o., see also Fig. 1, 7.
`
`Further,
`
`in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges
`
`disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. As
`
`such, Claim 10 is obvious over Minami, in view of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach the
`
`concentrations of the lithium salts. Wang teachesthe ratio of the LFSI to a total of the
`
`LFSI and the LiPFe may range from 16% LFSI (0.2 M LFSI, 1M LiPFe) to up to 70%
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 7
`
`LFSI (0.7M LFSI, 0.3 LiPFse). Wang at A169, see also Fig. 1, 7. These ratios may be
`
`reversed.
`
`/d.
`
`In 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. As such, Claim
`
`11 is obvious over Minami, in view of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach the ratio of the
`
`LFSI to the total of the LFSI and the LiPFe is 7 mol % or more and 30.8 mol %orless.
`
`Wangteaches the ratio of the LFSI to a total of the LFSI and the LiPFe may
`
`range from 16% LFSI (0.2 MLFSI, 1M LiPFe); Wang teaches a value of 30% LFSI (0.3
`
`M LFSI, 0.7M LiPFe). Wang at A169, Fig. 1. In 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. As such, Claim 14 is obvious over Minami, in view
`
`of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach LFSI is
`
`contained at aconcentration of 0.1 mol/L or more and 0.6 mol/L or less in the
`
`electrolyte, and the LiPFe is contained at a concentration of 0.3 mol/L or more and 1.8
`
`mol/L or less in the electrolyte.
`
`Wangteaches theratio of the LFSI to a total of the LFSI and the LiPF6 may
`
`range from 16% LFSI (0.2 MLFSI, 1M LiPFs) to 60% LFSI (0.6 MLFSI, 0.4M LiPFe).
`
`Wang at A169, Fig. 1. These values overlap with the claimed range.
`
`In the case where
`
`the claimed ranges "overlap orlie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 8
`
`case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. As such, Claim 15 is obvious over Minami,
`
`in view of Wang.
`
`Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 depends on Claim 1. The modification of Minami
`
`teaches the non-aqueouselectrolyte of Claim 1. Minami does not teach the LFSI is
`
`contained at aconcentration of 0.1 mol/L or more and 0.4 mol/L or less in the
`
`electrolyte, and the LiPFe is contained at a concentration of 0.9 mol/L or more and 1.8
`
`mol/L or less in the electrolyte.
`
`Wangteaches the ratio of the LFSI to a total of the LFSI and the LiPFe may be
`
`16% LFSI (0.2 MLFSI, 1M LiPFe). Wang at A169, Fig. 1. These values overlap with the
`
`claimed range.
`
`In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges
`
`disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. As
`
`such, Claim 16 is obvious over Minami, in view of Wang.
`
`Claims 4, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Minami, et. in view of Wang, et. al, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view
`
`of Kinpara et al., US 20170025230 A1 (hereinafter, 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 teachesthat, 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 9
`
`(meth)acrylate may be the acrylic resin.
`
`Id. Kinpara teaches that 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 copolymerof vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal-neutralized product of ethylene-
`
`unsaturated carboxylic acid as a constitutional repeating unit.” /a. 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 discloses that 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, oneof 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 4 is obvious over Minami, in view
`
`of Wang, and further in view of 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 useof
`
`(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 teachesthat, 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 10
`
`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 discloses that 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, oneof 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 5 is obvious over Minami, in view of Wang, and further
`
`in view of Kinpara.
`
`Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1
`
`is obvious over the
`
`modification of Minami.
`
`Minami is silent as to the relative massof the binder.
`
`Kinpara teaches the content of the acrylic resin binder is suitably 0.5% by mass
`
`to 30% by massrelative to “the total mass of the active material, conductive assistant,
`
`and the binder.” Kinpara at [0024, 89]; The conductive assistant is suitably 0.1 — 30%
`
`by mass. /d. This reads upon an embodiment wherethe binder is 1g, the conductive
`
`assistant is 1g, and the active material is 98g, corresponding to 1.02 parts by massof
`
`the negative electrode active material. This in turn reads upon, “the acrylic resin is
`
`contained in the negative electrode in an amountof 0.4 parts by mass or more and 1.5
`
`parts by massor less per 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 11
`
`In the case wherethe claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior
`
`art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. As such, Claim 13 is
`
`obvious over Minami, in view of Wang, and further in view of Kinpara.
`
`Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami, in
`
`view of Wang, and further in view of Yoshida, et. al., US 20170214087 (hereinafter,
`
`Yoshida).
`
`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 advantagein increasing low temperature performance, wettability, and
`
`immersion. Minami at [0058]; Yoshida at [003, 26, 60]. As such, Claim 12 is obvious
`
`over Minami, in view of Wang, further in view of Yoshida.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`Page 12
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 10-16 have been
`
`considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any
`
`reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically
`
`challenged in the argument.
`
`Specifically, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wang, et. al., which
`
`teaches the use of LFSI and LiPFe in an overlapping range with the claimed ranges.
`
`The references Kinpara and Hallac remain, but are used in reference to the dependent
`
`claims. Further, the new claims 13, 14, 15, and 16 are encompassed by Kinpara’s
`
`teaching of the acrylic resin range and the LFSI and LiPFe ranges of Wang.
`
`Conclusion
`
`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 eventa 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-MONTHshortened 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.
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND, whosetelephone
`
`number is (571) 272-9997. Examinerinterviews 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 13
`
`schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview
`
`Request (AIR) at http:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner can normally be
`
`reached on Mondayto 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 numberfor 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.uspto.gov/external/portal.
`
`Should you have questions about accessto 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/975,870
`Art Unit: 1728
`
`/MATTHEW T MARTIN/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
`
`Page 14
`
`