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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US20140370358).
As to claim 1, Hong teaches a nonaqueous battery (title) comprising: a negative electrode ([0113]) having a negative electrode material layer containing lithium metal ([0118]), a positive electrode ([0113]) having a positive active material layer ([0117]), a nonaqueous electrolyte which contains a fluorine atom ([0053] and [0121]), a separator ([0113]) having a substrate and an inorganic particle layer on both surfaces (fig. 1 and [0015]), wherein the surface of the negative active material layer and the inorganic particle layer are stacked to face one another ([0113], [0123]) and the separator has an air permeability of 150 to 400 sec/100 ml (1:1 ml: cc) ([0109]). Hong is silent to necessarily picking and choosing the claimed lithium metal from the first list and the claimed fluorine atom containing electrolyte from the second list in a single combination/example however it would be obvious to try choosing from the provided art recognized equivalents in each list provided in Hong with a reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. each material performing the described function (anode and electrolyte) MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tokuda (US20130216919).
Regarding claim 2, Hong teaches various nonlimiting electrolyte solvents including ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) ([0121]) but is silent specifically to containing a fluorinated solvent and therefore a content of fluorinated solvent being 12% or more by volume.
Tokuda teaches recognizes the above solvents for nonaqueous secondary batteries (EC, PC, DMC, DEC and EMC among others) ([0004]) and that the use of their fluorinated derivatives ([0057-560]) improves high voltage operation, durability and drops in electrical conductivity in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution when used in an amount which includes the claimed 12vol% or more ([0061]: 0.01vol% or more). It would have been obvious to use the fluorinated cyclic carbonate of Tokuda in Hong to improve electrolyte properties as taught by Tokuda ([0061]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights