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 .
The Applicant has amended claim 20. The pending claims are claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16-18, 20.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12, 13, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanizaki Hiroaki, JP 2010-160982, in view of Li Zhenqui et al., CN 104966814.
Regarding claim 1, Hiroaki teaches an anode for a secondary battery (0001; 0011), the anode comprising: an electrolytic copper foil current collector (0020; 0109); an anode active material layer (0023-0024) which is provided on a single surface (0011) of the electrolytic copper foil current collector (0011) and includes lithium powder (0110; 0127); and a protective layer (0011) provided on the anode active material layer (0011-0012), the protective layer including a silicon atom (Si) (of 86 parts by mass of silicon monoxide (0107), wherein a thickness of the electrolytic copper foil current collector is 1 um to 100 um (0020), and a thickness of the anode active material layer (2 um to 150 um) (0027) and the protective layer (5 um-10 um) (0041) provided on the electrolytic copper foil current collector is 70 um (0109), and an average grain size of the lithium powder is 20 um (0110).
Hiroaki does not teach a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil current collector is 20 kgf/mm2 to 50 kgf/mm2, and wherein an internal energy of the electrolytic copper foil current collector according to Formula 1 below is 0.3 kgf/mm to 8.5 kgf/mm,[Formula 1] Internal energy (kgf/mm) = Tensile strength (kgf/mm2) x Elongation percentage (%) x Thickness (um).
However, the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness are considered to be process factors that can be adjusted, as necessary, in view of the characteristics and physical properties required to manufacture an anode.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness, by routine experimentation. "[W]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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hiroaki does not teach wherein an NP ratio (an anode capacity per unit area/a cathode capacity per unit area) in the anode for a secondary battery is 3.5 to 18.0.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Hiroaki does not teach the anode active material layer includes a weight ratio of the lithium powder and the binder is 95:5 to 99.5 : 0.5.
Li Zhenqui et al., teaches the anode active material layer includes lithium powder and a binder, and a weight ratio of the lithium powder and the binder is 90:10 to 99.5:0.5 (0023).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to insert the teachings of Li Zhenqui et al., into the teachings of Hiroaki because the claimed weight ratio of the lithium powder and the binder provide advantages such as a large energy storage (0004-0005).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroaki does not teach wherein a room- temperature tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil current collector before the electrolytic copper foil current collector is maintained at the temperature of 140*C for six hours is 30 kgf/mm2 to 50 kgf/mm2.
However, the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness are considered to be process factors that can be adjusted, as necessary, in view of the characteristics and physical properties required to manufacture an anode.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness, by routine experimentation. "[W]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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Hiroaki does not teach the thickness of the anode active material layer and the protective layer is 20 um, and a capacity is 4.2 mAh/cm2 or more.
Hiroaki teaches the thickness of the anode active material layer is 2-100 um (0027) and the protective layer is 5-40 um (0041).
Hiroaki does not teach a capacity is 4.2 mAh/cm2 or more.
However, since Hiroaki teaches an anode thickness and a protective layer thickness within the claimed range, the capacity should be within the claimed range of 4.2 mAh/cm2 or more.
Regarding claim 13, Hiroaki does not teach the anode is provided in a sheet type having a short axis and a long axis, and an average length (width) of the short axis is 150 mm to 2,000 mm.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness, by routine experimentation. "[W]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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Hiroaki does not teach wherein when a current density of the secondary battery is 10 mA/cm2, and time is 100 minutes or longer.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 17, “wherein when a symmetric cycling test is performed by rolling the anode active material layer, a potential value even after 60 hours is 0.2 Vto-0.2 V”, is a product-by-process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 18, Hiroaki teaches a method of manufacturing an anode (0047) for a secondary battery (0047), comprising: preparing an electrolytic copper foil current collector (0020; 0109) having a thickness of 20 um (0109); forming an anode active material layer (0110) by applying an anode active material including lithium powder (0110) on the electrolytic copper foil current collector (0109); providing a protective layer (0011); , wherein a thickness of the anode active material layer (2 um to 150 um) (0027) and the protective layer (5 um-10 um) (0041) provided on the electrolytic copper foil current collector is 70 um (0109), and an average grain size of the lithium powder is 20 um (0110), rolling the anode active material layer and the protective layer (0052; 0109),
Hiroaki does not teach coating the anode active material layer with a trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent solely or a composition including the trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent and an inorganic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Song into the teachings of Hiroaki because Song et al., teaches coating the anode active material layer with a trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent solely or a composition including the trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent and an inorganic material (0040) coupling processing by using one or more silane coupling agents such as trimethoxysilane (0043).
Hiroaki does not teach wherein a total thickness of the anode active material layer and the protective layer after the rolling process is 20% to 90% of the total thickness of the anode active material layer and the protective layer before the rolling process, maintaining a room-temperature tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil current collector to be in a range of 30 kgf/mm2 to 50 kgf/mm2 before the electrolytic copper foil current collector is maintained at a temperature of 1400C for six hours, and maintaining the electrolytic copper foil current collector at the temperature of 1400C for six hours.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the thickness of the active material layer and the protective layer thickness, the temperature, and time, which are considered to be process factors that can be adjusted, as necessary, in view of the characteristics and physical properties required to manufacture an anode.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness, by routine experimentation. "[W]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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Hiroaki does not teach wherein a tensile strength of the electrolytic copper foil current collector after the maintaining process is 20 kgf/mm2 to 50 kgf/mm2, wherein an internal energy of the electrolytic copper foil current collector according to Formula 1 below is 0.3 kgf/mm to 8.5 kgf/mm,[Formula 1] Internal energy (kgf/mm) = Tensile strength (kgf/mm2) x Elongation percentage (%) x Thickness (um).
However, the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness are considered to be process factors that can be adjusted, as necessary, in view of the characteristics and physical properties required to manufacture an anode.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the tensile strength, elongation percentage, and thickness, by routine experimentation. "[W]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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Hiroaki teaches a lithium secondary battery (0001; 0011), comprising: a cathode including a lithium compound (0046; 0069); an anode (0011) for the secondary battery (0011) of any one of the claims; a separator (0081; 0092; 0112) interposed between the cathode and the anode (0062); and a liquid electrolyte (0021) or a polyelectrolyte (0021).
Claim(s) 5, 9, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanizaki Hiroaki, JP 2010-160982, in view of Li Zhenqui et al., CN 104966814, and in further view of Song et al., US 20170141403 (KR 10-1500565).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroaki does not teach wherein surface roughness is provided on the single surface or both surfaces of the electrolytic copper foil current collector, and the anode active material layer is provided on the surface provided with the surface roughness in the electrolytic copper foil current collector.
Song et al., teaches a surface roughness on the surface of the copper foil (0026) and the anode active material is on the surface of the current collector (0026-0033).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Song et al., into the teachings of Hiroaki because the surface roughness of the copper foil may be adjusted via surface treatment (0040-0041), in order to provide a high mechanical strength and a high elongation property (0005).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Song into the teachings of Hiroaki because Song teaches fabricating the anode active material by mixing anode active material with a binder to provide a high mechanical strength and a high elongation property (0005).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroaki does not teach wherein the protective layer is formed by silane coupling processing by using one or more silane coupling agents selected from methyltrimethoxysilane, tetraethoxysilane, 3-glycidoxypropyl trimethoxysilane, 2-(3,4- epoxycyclohexyl)etyltrimethoxysilane, 3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane, N-2-(aminoethyl)-3- aminopropyl trimethoxysilane, N-2-(aminoethyl)-3-aminoprophylmethyl demethoxysilane, vinyl trimethoxysilane, vinyl phenyl trimethoxysilane, vinyltris(2-methoxyethoxy)silane, 3- acryloxypropyl trimethoxysilane, 3-methacryloxypropyl trimethoxysilane, 3- mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane, dimethylchlorosilane, methyldichlorosilane, methyltrichlorosilane, phenyltrichlorosilane, trichlorosilane, trimethylchlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, and vinyltrichlorosilane.
Song et al., teaches the protective layer is formed by silane (0040) coupling processing by using one or more silane coupling agents such as trimethoxysilane (0043).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Song into the teachings of Hiroaki because the silane in Song is employed for the surface treatment of the copper foil (0040).
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the protective layer is formed by coating…” is a product-by-process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .
Hiroaki does not teach wherein the protective layer is formed by coating the anode active material layer with a trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent solely or a composition including the trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent and an inorganic material.
However, it would have been advantageous to insert Song et al, into Hiroaki because Song teaches the protective layer is formed by coating the anode active material layer with a trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent solely (0043) or a composition including the trimethoxy silane-based coupling agent and an inorganic material (0043).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Song et al., into the teachings of Hiroaki in order to provide a high mechanical strength and a high elongation property (0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests "wherein the anode active material layer includes lithium powder and a binder, and a weight ratio of the lithium powder and the binder is 95 : 5 to 99.5 : 0.5," as expressly recited in independent claims 1 and 18.”
However, Li Zhenqui et al., teaches the anode active material layer includes lithium powder and a binder, and a weight ratio of the lithium powder and the binder is 90:10 to 80:20 (0023), which is within the claimed range, as there is an overlap in the range.
"[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424.
When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation.
The Applicant argues that "the Examiner acknowledges that Hiroaki “does not teach wherein the N/P ratio… is 3.5 to 18.0”.
However, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed
to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights