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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Sato et al. specifically teaches nickel rich lithium oxides such as LixNiyM1−yO2 (wherein M is one or more metal element selected from among cobalt, manganese, titanium, chromium, vanadium, aluminum, tin, lead and zinc; 0.05≦×≦1.10; and 0.5≦y≦1.0) (paragraph [0181]) which encompasses the claimed Chemical Formula 2 with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03) or in the alternative, establishes a prima face case of obviousness over the claimed range as substantially overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Applicant alleges that the claimed composition has unexpected results corresponding to Examples in Tables 2 and 3 of the present specification. However, the Examiner notes MPEP 716.02(d) - Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope with Claimed Invention: Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.
In the instant case, the claims cannot be taken to be commensurate in scope with the Examples as alleged for at least the reason that the only Examples of Chemical Formula 1 are glycidyl acrylate (GA), (tetrahydrofuran-2-yl)methyl acrylate (THFA) or (tetrahydrofuran-2-yl)methyl methacrylate (THFMA) in a small amount such as 0.5 or 1wt%, and nowhere in the instant Examples shown or evaluated in the specification in a manner which would support the hundreds or thousands of other possible compounds included in Chemical Formula 1 in amounts such as 10wt% to have properties which would be desirable and/or unexpected in a manner which could give the claimed range a secondary consideration to overcome the asserted obviousness.
Therefore, the rejection based on Sato et al. is maintained and this action is FINAL. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable for obviousness over Sato et al. (US Pub 2004/0146786 cited in IDS).
In regard to claims 1-6, Sato et al. teach a lithium secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a cathode 3 and anode 4 which are stacked and facing each other;
a case 7 accommodating the electrode assembly; and an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery accommodated together with the electrode assembly in the case (see figure 1, paragraph [0198, 0250]),
wherein the electrolyte solution comprises an additive containing a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (see paragraphs [0061], compound A4) such as specifically 0.5 or 1 part by weight tetrahydrofurfuryl (meth)acrylate (see Examples below – which meets all the R and L group requirements of instant claims 1-3); an organic solvent of cyclic carbonate such as propylene carbonate i.e. PC, and linear carbonate such as ethylene carbonate i.e. EC and diethyl carbonate i.e. DEC; and a lithium salt such as LiPF6 (Example 2 and 13, paragraphs [0242-0265]),
wherein the cathode includes nickel rich lithium oxides such as LixNiyM1−yO2 (wherein M is one or more metal element selected from among cobalt, manganese, titanium, chromium, vanadium, aluminum, tin, lead and zinc; 0.05≦×≦1.10; and 0.5≦y≦1.0) (paragraph [0181]) which encompasses the claimed Chemical Formula 2 with sufficient specificity in a manner which anticipates the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03) or in the alternative, establishes a prima face case of obviousness over the claimed range as substantially overlapping the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 7-10, further comprising at least one auxiliary additive selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate-based compound, such as 10 parts by weight PC in Example 2 (paragraph [0244]), or 0.5 parts per weight vinylene carbonate i.e. VC in Example 13 (paragraph [0265]) which anticipate the claimed ranges for additive and auxiliary additive ratios and weight percents.
In regard to claim 11, while the prior art does not specifically teach multiple electrode pairs repeatedly stacked, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to multiply the number of cells that are repeatedly stacked to achieve desired current and voltage properties for the secondary battery (see MPEP 2144.04 Part VI regarding Duplication of Parts).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoshima et al. (US Pub 2003/0031923) teaches similar gelling agents for electrolytes such as glycidyl acrylate (paragraph [0123]). Sakamoto et al. (US Pub 2013/0130102 newly cited) teaches glycidyl acrylate GA monomers in electrolytes (paragraph [0124]).
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723