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Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. 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 and 3-10 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 § 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 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0388883 hereinafter Cho.
Regarding Claim 1, Cho teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary (paragraphs 47), the electrolyte comprising: a lithium salt (paragraph 48); an organic solvent (paragraph 49); and a fluorine-based additive (i.e., a difluorophosphite compound) (paragraphs 50-51).
Cho further teaches that the alkyl is a pentane (paragraph 66). 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.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form an electrolyte that comprises a difluorophosphite compound as shown in formula I (paragraph 50) and bonded to 2,4-dimethylpentane before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Cho discloses that such configuration can be directed to providing a lithium secondary battery having excellent lifetime characteristics and high temperature storage characteristics (paragraph 47).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Cho discloses a difluorophosphite compound as shown in formula I (paragraph 50) bonded to pentane (or 2,4-dimethylpentane [see paragraph 66]).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Cho teaches that the difluorophosphite compound is included in an amount ranging from 0.1 wt% to 5.0 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte (paragraph 67).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Cho teaches that the electrolyte further comprises an additive such as a sultone-based compound, which is included in an amount ranging from 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (paragraphs 72, 76).
Regarding Claim 9, Cho teaches that the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (paragraphs 77-78).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a plurality of cathodes and anodes that are repeatedly stacked; a case accommodating the electrode assembly; and the electrolyte solution accommodated in the case together with the electrode assembly (paragraphs 86, 156).
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