UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/997,984
`
`06/05/2018
`
`Masaki Hasegawa
`
`P180513US00
`
`2432
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`GUPTA~ SARIKA
`
`1729
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/ 1 7/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patentmail@ whda.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/997,984
`Examiner
`SARIKA GU PTA
`
`Applicant(s)
`Hasegawa, Masaki
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`1729
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01/02/2020.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) D This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`flis/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1_—7 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 06/05/2018 is/are: a). accepted or b)(j objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) C] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20200410
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page2
`
`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.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The amendment received January 2, 2020 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
`
`The objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are withdrawn.
`
`Drawings
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2020 have been fully considered. With respect to
`
`the prior art rejection of claims claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
`
`unpatentable over US 2006/0073375A1 to Hong et al. ("Hong"), in view of US 2015/0056511 Al
`
`to Takamatsu et al. ("Takamatsu"), have been addressed by the grounds of rejection as
`
`updated presented herein. Specifically, in response to applicant's argument that the references
`
`fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which
`
`applicant relies (i.e., cut-off valve) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Remarks page 7.
`
`Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`
`are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993).
`
`Additionally, applicant additionally argues that Hong is directed to reusability of the
`
`battery, the reference teaches away from combination with a current cut-off valve that cuts off a
`
`current path to terminate the battery operation. Remarks page 7 and 8. In response to
`
`applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page3
`
`attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
`
`See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
`
`231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page4
`
`Claim 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2006/0073375A1 to Hong et al. ("HONG"), in View of US 2015/0056511 A1 to Takamatsu et al.
`
`(“TAKAMATSU”) and in further view of WO 2009047893 to Kiyama .
`
`Regarding claim 1, Hong disclosesa secondary battery [Fig 1] [0012] comprising:
`
`a first electrode plate (111) having a first active material that is a positive active material,
`
`such as lithium cobalt oxide (corresponding to the claimed “a positive electrode having a
`
`positive electrode active material containing a...Co-and Li-containing transition metal
`
`oxide” feature) ([0028]—[0029]),
`
`a second electrode plate (112) having a second active material that is a negative
`
`electrode active material (corresponding to the claimed “a negative electrode” feature)
`
`([0028]—[0029]),
`
`anelectrolyte (corresponding to the claimed “an electrolyte” feature)([0031]),
`
`a can (120) for containing the first electrode plate (111), the second electrode plate
`
`(112), and the electrolyte (corresponding to the claimed “a package housing the positive
`
`electrode, the negative electrode and the electrolyte)([0027] and [0028]),
`
`a safety vent (148) that may be made up of such a material that when the battery
`
`temperature rises above a predetermined level, it temporarily contracts and opens the
`
`vent hole (147), and for example, the safety vent (148) may be made up of such material
`
`that is actuated at a temperature range of 70-150°C, in which gas is generally generated
`
`in the battery and returns to the original shape when the temperature
`
`drops(corresponding to a pressure relief valve actuated at a battery temperature of
`
`145°C or less for lowering an internal pressure of the package when the battery
`
`temperature increases) ([0036]). It is noted that this limitation is a recitation of functional
`
`language, where HONG is capable of the claimed function, as discussed above.
`
`Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page5
`
`substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed
`
`to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to
`
`believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of
`
`proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re
`
`Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQZd at 1478, 44 USPQZd at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(see MPEP § 2112.01, |.).
`
`While HONG does not teach a value "a" obtained by expression (1) is 9.5 or less, nor
`
`the claimed equation of
`
`a = Remaining space ratio obtained by expression (2)/Pressure resistance
`
`of pressure relief valve (kgf/cm2)
`
`Expression (1)
`
`Remaining space ratio = Space remaining within battery (cm3)/Rated capacity
`
`(Ah) of secondary battery
`
`Expression (2),
`
`HONG does disclose that the temperature affects when the vent is opened and this
`
`affects the pressure and space remaining (swelling) and safety of the battery [0012]. Thus,
`
`Hong teaches that temperature, swelling (pressure and remaining space ratio), and safety of the
`
`battery are all related.
`
`It is noted that the equation of “a” as required by claim 1 requires that “a” is related to the
`
`“remaining space ratio” and the “pressure resistance”, and thus “a” would necessarily be related
`
`to pressure and space remaining (i.e. swelling), as taught by Hong.
`
`As the safety of the battery and temperature are variables that can be modified, among
`
`others, by adjusting the swelling of the battery (i.e. pressure/remaining space ratio), which
`
`would directly impact the equation of “a” as claimed and the value of “a” as claimed, with said
`
`safety of the battery improving as the swelling of the battery is decreased(i.e. pressure is
`
`decreased /remaining space ratio is increased), the swelling of the battery (i.e. the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page6
`
`pressure/remaining space ratio), and thus the calculation and value of “a”, would have been
`
`considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the invention.As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed equation
`
`and value of “a” cannot be considered critical.Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the
`
`swelling of the battery (i.e. the pressure/remaining space ratio), and thus the calculation and
`
`value of “a”,in the apparatus of HONG to obtain the desired balance between the safety of the
`
`battery and temperature (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it
`
`has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art,
`
`discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105
`
`USPQ 223). “[VV]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
`
`inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re
`
`Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value
`
`of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within
`
`the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
`
`(see MPEP § 2144.05, ||.).
`
`HONG teaches the positive electrode active material is lithium cobalt oxide (LiC002), but
`
`does not explicitly teach the positive electrode also containing Ni-.
`
`Takamatsu teaches a cathode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery
`
`[0001].Takamatsu describesLipNiXCoyanMqOrFawhich can be used to replace LiC002as a
`
`cathode active material in the secondary battery (see paragraph [0064]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
`
`of the claimed invention to replace the LiC002 positive electrode active material of Hong with
`
`the LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa active material as taught by Takamatsu, as Takamatsu teaches that the
`
`LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa is a suitable material for a cathode active material that can also replace
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page7
`
`LiC002. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended
`
`use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
`
`(CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945),
`
`and MPEP § 2144.07.”
`
`Hong in view of Takamatsu do not teach a current cut off valve.
`
`Kiyama teaches a sealed battery [abs]. Kiyama teaches a current cut off valve (22) or shutting
`
`off the current and releasing the internal pressure has been proposed as a conventional
`
`technique for dealing with such battery abnormalities [Kiyama 0003]. At the time of filing it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to have modified Hong in view of Takamatsu to comprise the current cut off
`
`valve of Kiyama. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the heat: produce-ct in the
`
`current cuieff valve during the supply of current. t0 be dispersed. it is; thus possible to provide a thermaiiy
`
`stable, ntgn- perfermance sealed battery (typically a secondary battery) {Kiyarria 0011}.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, modified HONG teaches the invention as discussed above in claim
`
`1. Modified Hong claim 1 teaches the positive electrode material is the
`
`LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa.Further, Takamatsu discloses LiNio.8C00.16A|o.o402, where when element M
`
`contains a doped element such as Al, the battery properties such as safety will be improved,
`
`which is desirable (corresponds to the claimed “wherein the positive electrode active material
`
`containing the Ni-, Co-, and Li- containing transition metal oxide is the positive electrode active
`
`material containing a Ni-, Co-, Al- and Li-containing transition metal oxide) ([0063],[0064]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
`
`of the claimed invention to take modified HONG, which teaches the positive electrode material
`
`of LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa,and select LiNio_8Coo.1eAlo.o402, where element “M” contains a doped
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page8
`
`element of “Al” as taught by Takamatsu, as Takamatsu teaches that using doped element Alwill
`
`improve the safety of the battery.
`
`HONG does not teach a value "a" obtained by expression (1) is 6.5 or less. HONG does
`
`disclose that the temperature affects when the vent is opened and this affects the pressure and
`
`space remaining (swelling) and safety of the battery [0012]. Thus, Hong teaches that
`
`temperature, swelling (pressure and remaining space ratio), and safety of the battery are all
`
`related.
`
`It is noted that the equation of “a” as required by claim 1 requires that “a” is related to the
`
`“remaining space ratio” and the “pressure resistance”, and thus “a” would necessarily be related
`
`to pressure and space remaining (i.e. swelling), as taught by Hong.
`
`As the safety of the battery and temperature are variables that can be modified, among
`
`others, by adjusting the swelling of the battery (i.e. pressure/remaining space ratio), which
`
`would directly impact the value of “a” as claimed, with said safety of the battery improving as the
`
`swelling of the battery is decreased (i.e. pressure is decreased /remaining space ratio is
`
`increased), the swelling of the battery (i.e. the pressure/remaining space ratio), and thus the
`
`value of “a”, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.As such, without showing unexpected
`
`results, the claimed value of “a” cannot be considered criticaI.Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine
`
`experimentation, the swelling of the battery (i.e. the pressure/remaining space ratio), and thus
`
`the value of “a”, in the apparatus of HONG to obtain the desired balance between the safety of
`
`the battery and temperature (corresponding to the value of “a” obtained by expression (1) is 6.5
`
`or less),(In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that
`
`where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
`
`or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[VV]here
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page9
`
`the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
`
`optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,
`
`105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result
`
`effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP §
`
`2144.05, ||.).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, modified HONG teaches the invention as discussed above in claim
`
`1.Takamatsu further teaches the positive cathode having a composition of -LiNio.33Coo_37Mno_3002
`
`[0064](corresponding to the claimed “the positive electrode active material containingNi-,Co-
`
`,Mn- and Li- containing transition metal oxide) [0064].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to take modified Hong, which teaches the positive electrode
`
`material of LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa,and use LiNio.33Coo.37Mno.3002as taught byTakamatsu, because
`
`Takamatsu teaches LiNio.33Coo.37Mno.3002as one of the possible compositions for the
`
`LipNiXCoyanMqorFa cathode active material, and thus the LiNio.33Coo.37Mno.3002is a known and
`
`suitable material for use as a cathode active material in a secondary battery.The selection of a
`
`known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll
`
`Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 US. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.”
`
`Regarding Claim 4, modified HONG teaches the invention as discussed above in claim
`
`3. Hong in view of Takamatsu teaches the composition, LiNio.33Coo.37Mno.3002 [0064]. As
`
`discussed above,LiNio.33Coo.37Mno.3002 means Li with a subscript with the value of “1”
`
`(corresponds to 0<x<1.1), Ni.0330r Ni1..o_67(corresponding toy50.7 and y= B+y+6=0.37+0.30+0),
`
`C0037 (corresponding to B has the value .37 which falls within 0.1 s B s 0.4), Mnoso
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page10
`
`(corresponding to 0.2 <y< 0.4), M is 0 (corresponds to 05650.1)and 02 (corresponds to
`
`02)([0064]). The values of the composition thus fall within the ranges of the claimed values.
`
`Claim5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2006/0073375A1 to Hong et aI. ("HONG") in view of US 2015/0056511 A1 to Takamatsu et aI.
`
`(“TAKAMATSU”) and in further view of WO 2009047893 to Kiyama, as applied to claim 1 above,
`
`and further in View of WO 2015/136345 A1 to SAKA et al. ("SAKA").
`
`Regarding Claim 5, modified HONG teaches the positive electrode active material is
`
`LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa, but does not explicitly teach the positive electrode also containing Zr
`
`and/or W.
`
`However, SAKA teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, and discloses
`
`apositive electrode contains active material Zr. Saka teaches that Zr is set to 0.2 mol%, which
`
`falls within the claimed range (corresponds to “the positive electrode active material contains
`
`one or more of elements Zr and W, and a content of the elements in the positive electrode
`
`active material is in a range of 0.1% by mole or more and 1.5% by mole or less”) ([0049] and
`
`[0050D.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention to use the LipNiXCoyanMqOrFa positive electrode active material
`
`taught by modified Hong and further include 0.2 mol% of Zr as taught by Saka, because adding
`
`Zr can increase the output performance of the secondary battery. [0027]—[0029].
`
`Claim 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0073375A1 to
`
`Hong et al. ("HONG") in view of US 2015/0056511 A1 to Takamatsu et al. (“TAKAMATSU”) and
`
`in further view of WO 2009047893 to Kiyama, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
`
`US2013/0052508 A1 to KIM et al. ("KIM").
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page11
`
`Regarding Claim 6, modified HONG teaches the positive electrode active material is
`
`LipNiXCoyanMqorFa, but does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte contains a nonaqueous
`
`solvent that also contains a fluorine containing compound and falls in a range of 5% by volume
`
`or more and 15% by volume or less with respect to a total volume of the nonaqeuous solvent.
`
`However, KIM discloses a secondary battery wherein the electrolyte contains a
`
`nonaqueous solvent containing a fluorine-containing compoundwhich states the electrolyte may
`
`include a solvent including fluorinated ethylene carbonate which may be 10% volume or more
`
`based on the total volume of the solvent, which overlaps with the claimed range ([0020]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
`
`date of the invention to take the electrolyte, taught by modified Hong, and use a 10% volume or
`
`more based on the total volume of the solvent of the fluorinated ethylene carbonate as a
`
`nonaqueous solvent, as taught by Kim. Additionally, the use of a fluorine containing compound
`
`is obvious because these materials are known in the art to be suitable for use in secondary
`
`batteries.“A second reference may be used to show that a feature is inherent in a first reference
`
`if the first reference is silent with regard to the inherent feature.However, the evidence must
`
`make clear that the missing characteristic is ‘necessarily present’ in the first reference.” In re
`
`Imes, No. 14-1206 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2015) (quoting Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto C0,,
`
`948 F.2d 1264, 1268-69 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).lt would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected overlapping portion of the
`
`ranges disclosed by the reference, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been
`
`held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.See MPEP § 2144.05.l.
`
`Regarding claim 7, modified HONG teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 6,
`
`which discloses the secondary battery wherein the fluorine containing organic compound is
`
`fluoroethylene carbonate which is also found in KIM, paragraph [0020].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page12
`
`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 extension fee 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 date of this
`
`final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on 8:30AM-5:30PM.
`
`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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on 571 272-1481. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:15/997,984
`Art Unit:1729
`
`Page13
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access
`
`to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
`
`free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to
`
`the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
`
`/SARIKA GUPTA/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 1729
`
`/ULA C RUDDOCK/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
`
`