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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0015] line 10-11 “LiPF6 in the electrolyte solution is contained in an o 1/L of 1.0 to 2.0 m” is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite because claim 2 sets forth that “wherein the electrolyte solution includes a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate as the solvent”; however, claim 1 previously set forth “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”. Thus, it is unclear whether the non-fluorinated component is replacing or in addition to the fluorinated component. Clarity would be enhanced by specifying that the non-fluorinated component is a further ingredient as opposed to being the solvent. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiga et al. (US 20150380769 A1, “Chiga”).
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 (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”). Chiga discloses contains LiPF6 as an electrolyte (see [0029] “nonaqueous electrolyte contains a nonaqueous solvent and an electrolytic salt dissolved in the nonaqueous solvent”; see [0039] “electrolytic salt be a lithium salt” & “LiPF6”; see [0046] “LiPF6 was added to the resulting solvent to make a 1.1 mol/l nonaqueous electrolyte” which lies within the claimed range of 1.0 mol/L to 2.0 mol/L). Regarding the limitation 85% or more by volume to a total amount of the solvent, Chiga discloses 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 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 claim 2, Chiga discloses the non-aqueous secondary battery of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the electrolyte solution includes a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate as the solvent (see [0034] “nonaqueous solvent may include” & “cyclic carbonates” and the non-fluorinated component is a further ingredient as opposed to being the solvent).
Regarding claim 3, Chiga discloses the non-aqueous secondary battery of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate is ethylene carbonate (see [0035] “ethylene carbonate (EC)”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiga et al. (US 20150380769 A1, “Chiga”) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20110076571 A1, “Matsumoto”) and Noguchi et al. (US 20190089003 A1, “Noguchi”).
Regarding claim 4, Chiga discloses the non-aqueous secondary battery of claim 3 and further discloses wherein: a ratio of a content of the fluorinated ethylene carbonate and a total content of the ethylene carbonate (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]).
Regarding the limitation and a content of LiPF6 is 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]).
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]).
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