CTNF 18/287,950 CTNF 100171 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “LiAlO 42 ” appears to be a typo and should read “LiAlO 4 ” as described in the instant specification in [0055] . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubbs et al. (US 20170018801 A1, “Grubbs”) in view of Ito (JP H1050344, “Ito”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes . Regarding claim 1 , Grubbs discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising an additive (see [0177] “non-aqueous electrolyte”; see [0020] “additive”; see [0157] “coumarin” & see [0155] “substituted alkyl groups include fully fluorinated or semifluorinated alkyl groups, such as alkyl groups having one or more hydrogens replaced with one or more fluorine atoms”). Grubbs does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive is represented by Formula 1: PNG media_image1.png 312 516 media_image1.png Greyscale nor wherein, in Formula 1, R1 to R5 are each independently any one selected from the group consisting of hydrogen (H), an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, and an alkoxy group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, Rx is an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and substituted with at least one fluorine group, or an alkoxy group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and substituted with at least one fluorine group. Ito teaches coumarin-3-carboxylic acid (see claim 3 & P2) & describes chemical formula 4 PNG media_image2.png 110 230 media_image2.png Greyscale (see P2). Ito teaches “a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that can be used for a long period of time” (see P1 par 1). Ito teaches “coumarin and its derivatives” (see Ito P1 par 2). Grubbs and Ito are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely non-aqueous electrolyte (see Ito title). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate chemical formula 4, as suggested by Ito into the non-aqueous electrolyte of Grubbs because doing so uses “a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that can be used for a long period of time”, as suggested by Ito (see P1). Regarding claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, and claim 5 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses fluorinated substituted groups (see [0157] “coumarin” & “aryl groups are optionally substituted” & “Substituted aryl groups include fully halogenated or semihalogenated aryl groups, such as aryl groups having one or more hydrogens replaced with one or more fluorine atoms”; see [0155] “Substituted alkyl groups include fully fluorinated or semifluorinated alkyl groups, such as alkyl groups having one or more hydrogens replaced with one or more fluorine atoms”). Grubbs does not explicitly disclose wherein R x is CF 3 regarding claims 2-4 nor does Grubbs explicitly disclose wherein the additive is represented by Formula 1-1: PNG media_image3.png 248 468 media_image3.png Greyscale wherein, in Formula 1-1, Rx is CF 3 , as required by claim 4, nor wherein the additive is represented by Formulae 2-1 , as required by claim 5. Ito teaches coumarin-3-carboxylic acid (see claim 3 & P2) & describes chemical formula 4 PNG media_image2.png 110 230 media_image2.png Greyscale (see P2). Ito teaches “a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that can be used for a long period of time” (see P1 par 1). Ito teaches “coumarin and its derivatives” (see Ito P1 par 2). Further, Ito teaches on P1 “RRR in “Chemical Formula 4” is one of” & “carboxyl group” (see claim 7). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate coumarin-3-carboxylic acid as suggested by Ito (see claim 3) & “carboxyl group” as suggested by Ito (see P2 claim 7) into the non-aqueous electrolyte of Grubbs because doing so uses “a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that can be used for a long period of time”, as suggested by Ito (see P1). Regarding claim 6 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the additive is included in an amount (see [0022] “5 and 50 wt%”). Grubbs does not explicitly disclose 0.01 parts by weight to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte . Ito teaches in example 15 (see [0042]) “0.06 mol/dm 3 ” & “of coumarin”). Ito teaches a range of 0.06, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 to 3. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'. Regarding claim 7 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent (see abstract “lithium salt” & see [0130] “lithium salt” & “solvent” & see [0003] “organic solvents”). Regarding claim 8 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the lithium salt is LiPF 6 (see abstract “lithium salt” & see [0133] “LiPF 6 ”). Regarding claim 9 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7. Grubbs does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium salt is included in a concentration of 0.5 M to 5.0 M. Ito teaches LiPF 6 at a concentration of 1 (see [0035] 1 mol dm is a typo and should read mol/dm 3 which is equivalent to M) which lies within the claimed range. Ito teaches a range of 1, which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 to 5.0. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'. Regarding claim 10 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the organic solvent is a cyclic carbonate based organic solvent. Ito teaches a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent (see [0021] “solvent of ethylene carbonate” & see [0059]). Ito teaches “a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that can be used for a long period of time” (see P1 par 1). Ito teaches ethylene carbonate (see [0021] & [0059] amongst a list of other solvents. KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select ethylene carbonate from the list of possible solvents taught in Ito & it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ethylene carbonate as suggested by Ito (see [0021], [0059]) into the non-aqueous electrolyte of Grubbs because doing so produces a “non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that can be used for a long period of time” as suggested by Ito (see P1 par 1). Regarding claim 11 , claim 12 , and claim 13 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1, claim 5 and claim 6 and further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see [0257] “li-ion battery”). Regarding claim 15 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising at least one second additive (see [0018] “electrochemical additives” which reads on at least one second additive). Regarding claim 16 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the second additive is a sultone-based compound (see [0021] “PS”) , or a lithium salt-based compound (see [0019] “lithium salt” & see [0021] “electrochemical additive is a salt, for example a lithium salt” & see [0133] “this second lithium salt may be viewed as an additive” & “the additive salt may be selected from lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB); lithium difluoro(oxalato) borate (LiDFOB), lithium tetrafluoro(oxalato) phosphate (LiTFOP), or combinations thereof.”). The specification of the instant invention provides evidence in [0072] that PS is a sultone-based compound. Regarding claim 17 , Grubbs discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the at least one second additive is included in an amount of between 5 and 50 wt% (see [0022]) which overlaps the claimed range. Grubbs discloses a range of between 5 and 50 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 20 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)' . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grubbs et al. (US 20170018801 A1, “Grubbs”) in view of Ito (JP H1050344, “Ito”) , as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20140127563 A1, “Kim”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes . Regarding claim 14 , Grubbs discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 11 and further discloses further comprising a positive electrode (see [0032] “positive electrode”). Grubbs does not explicitly disclose including a positive electrode active material, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide represented by Formula 3: Li x Ni a Co b M 1 c M 2 d O 2 wherein, in Formula 3, M 1 is at least one selected from manganese (Mn) or aluminum (Al), M 2 is at least one selected from zirconium (Zr), boron (B), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), cerium (Ce), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), or sulfur (S), and 0.90≤x≤1.1, 0.80≤a<1.0, 0<b<0.2, 0<c<0.2, 0≤d≤0.1, and a+b+c+d=1. Kim teaches a positive active material (see [0083] “positive active material” & “lithium nickel cobalt manganese based oxide”; see [0085] “Li a Ni 1-b-c Co b R’” c O 2-α Z α (0.90 ≤a≤1.8, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.05 and 0<α<2)” which describes a overlaps x for lithium, & overlapping range of nickel, range lies within for Al & describes “R’ is Al” which reads on M 1 is Al; overlapping range for α of Fluorine; “Z is F” which reads on M 2 is F”). Kim teaches lithium secondary battery (see Title). Kim teaches “the active material particles are coated with a conductive agent the surface thereof in order to form a conductive network and increase conductivity” (see [0008]). Grubbs and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary battery (see Kim Title). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the positive active material as suggested by Kim (see [0083], [0085]) into the lithium secondary battery of Grubbs because doing so increases conductivity as suggested by Kim (see [0008]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET. 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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. /S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 5 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 6 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 7 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 8 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 9 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 10 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 11 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/287,950 Page 12 Art Unit: 1725
Prosecution Insights