DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2024 included a typographical error for cite no. 2: “20100149337”. The publication number and publication date were corrected to 20100159337 and 2010-06-24.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (US 2013/0260261).
Regarding claims 1, 10-12, and 18-20, Kotani teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte solution and lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode 20 containing a positive electrode active material (Fig. 1);
a negative electrode 30 containing a negative electrode active material (Fig. 1);
a separator 40 (Fig. 1);
and an electrolyte composition (abstract).
The negative electrode may include metals including silicon (para 0025). The electrolyte includes various solutes (i.e., lithium salts), which may be used in a combination of two or more (para 0039). The electrolyte composition further includes 10-15 wt.% FEC, fluorinated solvent (Examples 15-17), 1 wt.% DTD, additive (Examples 15-17), and the balance one or more non-fluorinated solvents (para 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use silicon from the list of recited known materials (para 0025).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kotani teaches the concentration of the solute in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution is 0.5-2.0 M (para 0040), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of between 1 M and 2 M, and between 1.2 M and 1.6 M.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kotani teaches the electrolyte includes various solutes (i.e., lithium salts), which may be used in a combination of two or more (para 0039).
Regarding claims 6-8, Kotani teaches salts may be LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiTFSI, etc. (para 0039).
Regarding claim 9, Kotani teaches LiTFSI, not LiFSI. However, LiTFSI and LiFSI are close analogs and LiFSI is commonly known as a lithium salt used for the same.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, instant claims are proviso upon limitation FB not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 15, Kotani teaches EC/DEC (para 0052).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, instant claims are proviso upon limitation EMC not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force. However, Kotani does teach examples of the chain carbonate include dimethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (para 0037), wherein the chain carbonate is used in 3:7 ratio (para 0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
