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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiga et al. (US 20150380769 A1, “Chiga”) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20110076571 A1, “Matsumoto”) and Noguchi et al. (US 20190089003 A1, “Noguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Chiga discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery (see abstract “nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery”) comprising: a negative electrode including metallic Li (see abstract “negative electrode”; see [0028] “Li”); a positive electrode (see abstract “positive electrode”); a separator (see [0042] “separator”); and an electrolyte solution (see [0029] “electrolytic solution”), wherein the electrolyte solution contains a fluorinated ethylene carbonate as a solvent in 85% or more by volume to a total amount of the solvent (see [0030] “one or more other fluorinated solvents”; see [0031] “fluorinated cyclic carbonates include 4-fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)” & “FEC is desired”; see [0034] “it is desired that the proportion of fluorinated solvent to the total weight of the nonaqueous solvent be in the range of 70% to 100% by weight” which overlaps the claimed range).
Chiga discloses a range of 70% to 100% by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of 85% or more by volume. 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 the limitation the electrolyte solution further contains a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate as the solvent, Chiga discloses (see [0034] “nonaqueous solvent” & “non-fluorinated solvents include cyclic carbonates”). Chiga discloses the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate being at least one of an ethylene carbonate and a propylene carbonate (see [0035] “ethylene carbonate (EC)”).
Regarding the limitation in the solvent, a ratio of a content of the fluorinated ethylene carbonate to a total content of the ethylene carbonate and the propylene carbonate is from 85:15 to 95:5, Chiga discloses (see [0046] “4-Fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and 3,3,3-trifluoromethyl propionate (FMP) were mixed in a weight ratio of 11.5:88.5” which describes fluorinated ethylene carbonate (FEC) is added at a ratio; see [0030] “FMP may be the only fluorinated solvent in the nonaqueous solvent, but it is desired that FMP be used in combination with one or more other fluorinated solvents. Examples of fluorinated solvents other than FMP include fluorinated cyclic carbonates, fluorinated linear carbonates, fluorinated linear carboxylates excluding FMP, and mixtures of them. It is desired that the proportion of FMP to the total weight of the nonaqueous solvent be 50% by weight or more, more desirably 50% to 95% by weight”; see [0035] “ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC)”; see [0034] “From the side-reaction reduction perspective, it is desired that the proportion of fluorinated solvent to the total weight of the nonaqueous solvent be in the range of 70% to 100% by weight”).
Chiga discloses a range of 70% to 100% by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of 85% or more. 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)'.
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 70% to 100% by weight as suggested by Chiga for the purpose of reducing side reaction (see [0034]).
Chiga does not explicitly disclose a ratio of propylene carbonate in the solvent.
Matsumoto teaches ratio of EC and FEC (see [0017] describes “nonaqueous electrolytic solution” & “volume ratio of the FEC to the sum of (EC) and (FEC) preferably satisfies the relation of 0.2≤FEC/(EC+FEC)” & “this relationship prevents an increase in the growth rate of charge capacity and a decrease in the charge-discharge efficiency after the continuous charge and storage test”).
Noguchi teaches ratio of EC and PC used in a solvent composition (see Table 2 Example 20 in [0117] describes EC/PC used at 5/5 solvent composition (Volume ratio) & capacity retention rate 80%.
Chiga and Noguchi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electrolytes for secondary batteries (see Noguchi Abstract).
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 ratio of EC and PC of 5 to 5 as suggested by Noguchi (see [0117] Table 2 Example 20) into the non-aqueous secondary battery of Chiga because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so improves the capacity retention rate and Matsumoto suggests a ratio of EC and FEC satisfy a relation (see [0017]) and doing so “prevents an increase in the growth rate of charge capacity and a decrease in the charge-discharge efficiency after the continuous charge and storage test”, as suggested by Matsumoto (see [0017]).
Regarding the limitation and the electrolyte solution further contains LiPF6 as an electrolyte in 1.5 mol/L to 2.0 mol/L, Chiga discloses in [0046] “LiPF6 was added to the resulting solvent to make a 1.1 mol/l nonaqueous electrolyte”. The amount of LiPF6 disclosed by Chiga is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Matsumoto teaches a content of LiPF6 is “preferably 0.8 to 1.5 mol/L” (see [0027]).
Chiga and Matsumoto are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely nonaqueous electrolyte for secondary battery (see Matsumoto abstract).
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 teaching of Matsumoto to include LiPF6 at 1.5 mol/L (see [0027]) into the non-aqueous secondary battery of Chiga because doing so is a preferable concentration of LiPF6 as suggested by Matsumoto (see [0027]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiga et al. (US 20150380769 A1, “Chiga”) in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20110076571 A1, “Matsumoto”) and Noguchi et al. (US 20190089003 A1, “Noguchi”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe et al. (US 20180277900 A1, “Abe”).
Regarding claim 5, Chiga discloses the non-aqueous secondary battery of claim 1 and regarding the limitation wherein the ratio of the content of the fluorinated ethylene carbonate to the total content of the ethylene carbonate, Chiga discloses in [0046], [0030], [0035] & [0034] which describes “From the side-reaction reduction perspective, it is desired that the proportion of fluorinated solvent to the total weight of the nonaqueous solvent be in the range of 70% to 100% by weight” which overlaps the claimed range of 88 to 92. Regarding the limitation of wherein the ratio of the content of the fluorinated ethylene carbonate to the total content of the ethylene carbonate and the propylene carbonate is from 88:12 to 92:8, Chiga does not explicitly disclose a ratio of ethylene carbonate and the propylene carbonate in the total content.
Abe teaches in [0051] “As the cyclic carbonate, at least, ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate are used”; see [0052] “The content of ethylene carbonate is 5% by volume or more, preferably 7% by volume or more, and more preferably 9% by volume or more, in relation to the whole of the non-aqueous solvent, from the viewpoint of the improvement of the electric conductivity”; see [0053] “The content of propylene carbonate is 5% by volume or more, preferably 7% by volume or more, and more preferably 9% by volume or more, in relation to the whole of the non-aqueous solvent, from the viewpoint of the improvement of the electrochemical characteristics in a high temperature environment”.
Chiga and Abe are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely non-aqueous electrolytic solution for lithium secondary battery (see Abe 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 volume % of ethylene carbonate is “more preferably 9%” & the volume % of propylene carbonate is “more preferably 9%” as suggested by Abe (see [0052] & [0053]) into the non-aqueous secondary battery of Chiga because doing so improves the electric conductivity, as suggested by Abe (see [0052]) and doing so improves the electrochemical characteristics in a high temperature environment, as suggested by Abe (see [0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/06/2026
Prosecution Insights