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 § 103
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(s) 26 and 32-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. hereinafter 2013/0224535 hereinafter Matsuoka, US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0076572 hereinafter Amine and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0165417 hereinafter Morita.
Regarding Claims 26 and 32-42, Matsuoka teaches an electrolyte solution comprising: acetonitrile and lithium salt (paragraphs 33, 43), wherein the content of acetonitrile is 10 to 100 vol% (paragraph 43).
The combination further teaches an electrolyte that comprises a lithium salt having concentration of 1M or more and containing LiFSO3 in an amount of 0.1 mass ppm by weight based on the total amount of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (see claim 8 of Morita), that the electrolyte further comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and LiPF6 at a molar concentration satisfying: LiPF6 < lithium-containing imide salt, and the content of the lithium salt is 0.1 to 40 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (paragraphs 24, 28-32 of Matsuoka).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such amount of LiFSO3 in the electrolyte [i.e., 0.1 ppm] before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Morita discloses that an increase in resistance of a battery can be suppressed, and a decrease in ionic conductivity and an increase in viscosity of the electrolytic solution can be suppressed (paragraph 50).
With regards to the battery as claimed, the combination teaches similar battery components and MPEP 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
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 OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights