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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Long (US 20160181659 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7 , Long discloses a secondary battery comprising ([0032]-[0041][0052]-[0059]):
a positive electrode (cathode [0052]-[0053]);
a negative electrode (anode [0054]-[0055]); and
an electrolytic solution ([0047]-[0049] and Table 1 in Fig. 1, components of electrolyte in [0047]), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer (LiCoO2 covering Al [0053]) and a film (electrolyte solution deposited in same manner as indicated in instant specification-see more detail provided below, [0058]) , the film covering a surface of the positive electrode active material layer (covers cathode material as indicated above [0058]),
the film includes cobalt, carbon, nitrogen, boron, and oxygen (see Table 1, SN included in many samples, LiBF4 also included in many samples and will bond to cobalt in LiCoO2).
Furthermore, Long discloses samples where the dinitrile compound includes succinonitrile and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt may include lithium tetrafluoroborate (see Fig. 1 Table 1 and [0047]) and the content of the dinitrile compound in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 3 wt % to 10 wt % (claim 1) and the content of the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 0.5 wt % to 1 wt % (see claim 1) and specific examples in Table 1 where SN is 3 wt% and LiBF4 is at 0.3 wt%.
Long discloses an electrolyte solution is formed by adding electrolyte salts, to a solvent and furthermore the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt to the electrolyte solution ([0048]) and discloses that the electrolyte containing the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt is applied through an electrolyte solution to the positive electrode active material layers ([0058]).
For ease, Applicant's specification will refer to document US 20230378434 A1.
Applicant's specification indicates in para [0121] "Further, the dinitrile compound may include succinonitrile, adiponitrile, or both, and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt may include lithium tetrafluoroborate. This makes it sufficiently easier for the film 21C to be formed on the surface of the positive electrode active material layer 21B. Accordingly, it is possible to achieve higher effects. In this case, the content of the dinitrile compound in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 3 wt % to 10 wt % both inclusive, and the content of the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 0.5 wt % to 1.3 wt % both inclusive. "
Applicant's specification indicates an electrolyte solution is formed by adding electrolyte salts, to a solvent and furthermore the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt to the electrolyte solution ([0154]-[0156]). The specification discloses that the electrolyte solution containing the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt is applied to the positive electrode active material layers [0161].
Therefore with regards to the property of “a first peak derived from CoC2N2- and a second peak derived from BOx - are detectable based on a negative ion analysis of the film by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, and a ratio of an intensity of the second peak to an intensity of the first peak is greater than or equal to 0.19 and less than or equal to 1.00” will be present in Long since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes. When 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are 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 ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20160181659 A1) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above and in further view of Kim (US 20150140395 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Long discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Long discloses that the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolytic solution are housed in an external package to form the lithium secondary battery ([0058]).
However, Long does not disclose that the external package has flexibility.
Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery external package can be a variety of types including a pouch package which has flexibility ([0069]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the external packaging of Long by using the flexible packaging as disclosed by Kim because Kim discloses that it is an appropriate and well-known type of external packaging for a lithium secondary battery external package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726