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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tanaka (JP2019/164964, Machine Translation)
Regarding Claim 1-4 and 13-14, Tanaka et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery [Fig. 1, 0018], comprising a positive electrode [20, Fig. 1, 0018], and a negative electrode [32, Fig. 1, 0018] not having a negative electrode active material [Fig. 1, the negative electrode 32 and anode active material layer 34 are separate; therefore, the negative electrode does not have a negative electrode material since it is separate from the anode active material layer 34]; wherein the lithium secondary battery comprises a compound have a 1,3,5-triazine ring skeleton [0032-0033, 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-trithiol].
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches further comprising a separator or a solid electrolyte which is placed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [separator 10, Fig. 1, 0058].
Regarding Claim 6, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein at least a part of the compound is applied onto at least a part of a surface of the negative electrode facing the positive electrode [0032-0033].
Regarding Claim 7, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches further comprising electrolyte solution; wherein the electrolyte solution comprises the compound [0033].
Regarding Claim 9, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery is a lithium secondary battery in which charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium [0070-0072].
Regarding Claim 10, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode is an electrode consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ni, Ti, Fe, and other metals that do not react with Li, alloys thereof, and stainless steel (SUS) [0021].
Regarding Claim 11, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode does not have a lithium metal on a surface of the negative electrode before initial charge and/or at an end of discharge [0024-0025, 0070-0072, 0021].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2019/164964, Machine Translation)
Regarding Claim 12, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. is silent on wherein the battery has an energy density of 350 Wh/kg or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the battery has an energy density of 350 Wh/kg or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters in the battery of Tanaka et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2019/164964, Machine Translation) in view of Xu (US Pub No. 2018/0090751)
Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Tanaka et al. teaches the use of an electrolyte [0059] but is silent on the electrolyte solution of the claim, comprising
Xu et al. teaches the use of HFE as an additive for an electrolyte [0053-0054], which results in better cycle performance of the battery [0074].
Since Tanaka et al. teaches the use of an electrolyte solution [0025, 0059], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention apply the electrolyte additive of Xu et al. with the electrolyte of Tanaka et al. in order to provide a battery with better cycle performance [0074].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728