DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicant’s Arguments.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the evidence provided in the arguments is not of probative value. Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value. See MPEP 716.01(c).
An affidavit is a statement in writing made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See MPEP § 602 et seq. for additional information regarding formal requirements of affidavits.
37 CFR 1.68 permits a declaration to be used instead of an affidavit. The declaration must include an acknowledgment by the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Based on the foregoing, the previous rejections are maintained in this office action. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 114024029 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Guo).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte (See, at least, Abstract) for a lithium secondary battery comprising:
an additive (e.g., “a compound A”, [0005]),
an additional additive (e.g., “lithium difluorophosphate”, [0026]),
a lithium salt (e.g., “lithium hexafluorophosphate”, [0026]), and
a non-aqueous organic solvent (e.g., “a carbonate compound”, [0020]),
wherein the additive is a compound represented by, for example,
PNG
media_image1.png
107
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which contains an ester group -C(=O)OR’ (See [0009]-[0019]). The claimed chemical formula 1 is an analogue to the above formula of Guo. It has been held that closely related homologs, analogues, and isomers in chemistry creates a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon 16 USPQ 2d 1897, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Payne 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979); In re Mills 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Henze 85 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1950); In re Hass 60 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1944). See MPEP § 2144.09.
Regarding claim 3, Guo teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the additive is included in an amount of 0.1% to 5.0% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery (See, at least, [0011] and [0016]). The claimed range of 0.05% to 20% overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Guo teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the additional additive (e.g., lithium difluorophosphate) is a phosphate-based compound.
Regarding claim 5, Guo teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising:
the non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator ([0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Guo teaches the lithium secondary according to claim 5, wherein the negative electrode may comprise a carbon-based negative electrode active material and a silicon-based negative electrode active material ([0035]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20110177393 A1, hereafter Park).
Regarding claims 7-8, Guo teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 6, but is silent as to the weight ratios as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Park discloses a carbon-silicon composite comprises carbon and silicon in a weight ratio of 75/25=3 ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed the weight ratio of 3 taught by Park in the composite material of carbon-based and silicon-based negative electrode active materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. As a result, the ratio of 3 reads on the ranges as claimed in claims 7-8.
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 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727