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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okumi et al. (JP 2015125934 A), hereinafter "Okumi," wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Okumi teaches:
a secondary battery…preferably a lithium ion battery ([0017]; corresponding to a lithium-ion secondary battery);
the secondary battery including a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0006]; corresponding to a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, respectively);
an electrolytic solution ([0006]), wherein examples of the electrolyte include LiPF6 ([0061]; corresponding to an electrolytic solution containing LiPF6); and
the electrolyte solution contains an anion receptor that forms a salt or a complex with an anion ([0006]) and the anion receptor may be a borate-based anion receptor (chemical formula AR2 showing a borate triester, [0037-0038]); corresponding to the electrolytic solution contains a boric acid triester compound for capturing fluoride ions).
Regarding claim 2, Okumi teaches:
the anion receptor is tris(pentafluorophenyl)borate (chemical formula 4, [0058]; corresponding to the boric acid triester compound is tri(halogenated phenyl)borate).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumi as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Okumi teaches the content of the anion receptor in the electrolytic solution is, for example, 0.01 – 1.0 mol/L ([0060]) which overlaps with the instantly claimed concentration range of the tri(halogenated phenyl)borate of 1.0 mol/L or more and 2.0 mol/L or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Svensson et al. (WO 2017055628 A1) – teaches anion receptors at concentrations greater than 1.0 mol/L.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/A.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights