DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA 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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendment. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 12-22 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0092802 hereinafter Ahn.
Regarding Claim 1, Ahn teaches a secondary battery (paragraph 38) comprising: a cathode that includes a cathode active material; an anode that includes an anode active material; and an electrolyte (paragraphs 39-44), wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (ring-opening compound) (paragraph 25), ethylene sulfite (heterocyclic compound) (paragraph 26), and dimethyl carbonate (paragraph 36).
Ahn further teaches that ethylene sulfite (additive) is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total electrolyte (paragraph 31 [i.e., Example 6 specifically describes adding 5 parts by weight of ethylene sulfite to the electrolyte]).
With regards to the recitation “…an impedance of the battery cell at a temperature less than or equal to -10oC is decreased compared to the same battery cell without the ethylene sulfite” MPEP § 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because the recited secondary battery of Ahn is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., a secondary battery that comprises a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and 5 parts by weight of ethylene sulfite), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
In addition, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claim 6, Ahn teaches a secondary battery (paragraph 38) comprising: a cathode that includes a cathode active material; an anode that includes an anode active material; and an electrolyte (paragraphs 39-44), wherein the electrolyte comprises vinylene carbonate (paragraph 24), fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraph 25), and ethylene sulfite (paragraph 26).
Ahn further teaches that ethylene sulfite (additive) is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total electrolyte (paragraph 31 [i.e., Example 6 specifically describes adding 5 parts by weight of ethylene sulfite to the electrolyte]).
With regards to the recitation “…an impedance of the battery cell at a temperature less than or equal to -10oC is decreased compared to the same battery cell without the ethylene sulfite” MPEP § 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because the recited secondary battery of Ahn is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., a secondary battery that comprises a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and 5 parts by weight of ethylene sulfite), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
In addition, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claim 17, Ahn teaches a secondary battery (paragraph 38) and a method for fabricating the secondary battery (paragraph 39), the method comprises providing a battery comprising: a cathode that includes a cathode active material; an anode that includes an anode active material; and an electrolyte (paragraphs 39-44), wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (ring-opening compound) (paragraph 25), ethylene sulfite (heterocyclic compound) (paragraph 26), and dimethyl carbonate (paragraph 36).
Ahn further teaches that ethylene sulfite (additive) is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total electrolyte (paragraph 31 [i.e., Example 6 specifically describes adding 5 parts by weight of ethylene sulfite to the electrolyte]).
With regards to the recitation “…an impedance of the battery cell at a temperature less than or equal to -10oC is decreased compared to the same battery cell without the ethylene sulfite” MPEP § 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because the recited secondary battery of Ahn is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., a secondary battery that comprises a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and 5 parts by weight of ethylene sulfite), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
In addition, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0140321 hereinafter Ahn.
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 17, Ahn teaches a secondary battery and a method for fabricating the secondary battery (paragraphs 114-115), the method comprises providing a battery comprising: a cathode (positive electrode) that includes a cathode active material; an anode (negative electrode) that includes an anode active material; and an electrolyte (paragraphs 77-78), wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (ring-opening compound) (paragraph 68), ethylene sulfite (heterocyclic compound) (paragraph 71), and dimethyl carbonate (paragraph 38), and vinylene carbonate (paragraph 72).
Ahn further teaches that ethylene sulfite (additive) is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 5 wt % based on total weight of the electrolyte (paragraph 71).
With regards to the recitation “…an impedance of the battery cell at a temperature less than or equal to -10oC is decreased compared to the same battery cell without the ethylene sulfite” MPEP § 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because the recited secondary battery of Ahn is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., a secondary battery that comprises a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, vinylene carbonate, and 5 wt % of ethylene sulfite), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
In addition, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0140321 hereinafter Ahn.
Regarding Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-22, Ahn teaches a secondary battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises 5 wt % of fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraph 68), 5 wt % of ethylene sulfite (paragraph 71); 3 wt % of vinylene carbonate (paragraph 72); and 3 wt % of tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite (paragraph 73). As evidence by Hiwara (US 2009/0226806) the phosphate-based compound can be tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphate in a range of 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % (paragraph 57).
The combination teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises a solvent that includes ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl propionate, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 34-39), and wherein the positive electrode active material has an areal density of at least 12 mg/cm2 and a press density of at least 2.0 g/cm3, and the negative electrode active material has an areal density of at least 4.8 mg/cm2 and a press density of at least 1.4 g/cm3 (paragraphs 61, 63 of Hiwara).
In addition, MPEP § 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because the recited secondary battery is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., a secondary battery that comprises a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, vinylene carbonate and ethylene sulfite), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752