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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Support can be found in PGPUB [0020]-[0025] and [0039]-[0042].
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-13 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following:
Applicant presents a declaration under Rule 132 executed by Yong Seok Lee (hereinafter “Lee Declaration”) showing additional data to support the alleged criticality of the claimed contact angle range and discussing the separate layer structure.
In regards to the Lee Declaration, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. In the data presented in the Lee Declaration, it is acknowledged that Example 1 and 3-4 show improved fast charge life and have a contact angle of 150-180° between the point-type conductive material of the first coating layer and the silicon-based active material of the second coating layer. However, in Examples 1 and 3-4 the ratio between D50 of the point-type conductive material and D50 of the silicon-based active material ranges from 1:1.44 – 1:60. Therefore it is uncertain if it is the contact angle or the particle size ratio which provides the improved electrical conductivity, suppression of battery resistance increase, and improved fast charge life. Claim 1 as amended requires both a contact angle of 150-180° and a particle size ratio of 1:60-1:20. Therefore, the data presented in the Lee Declaration, which shows improved fast charge life with a contact angle of 150-180° and a particle size ratio of 1:1.44-1:60, is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Further, the argument in regards to the composition of each layer are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims use "including" language which allows for additional components to be present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “wherein a contact angle between the point-type conductive material of the first coating layer and the silicon-based active material of the second layer is in the range of 150-180°”, and the claim also recites “wherein a ratio between an average particle diameter (D50) of the point-type conductive material and an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon-based active material is 1:60-1:20which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
According to the instant specification contact angle is calculated from Equation 1,
θ
=
2
x
cos
-
1
d
2
d
1
+
d
2
, where d1 is a silicon-based active material particle size (D50) of the second coating layer, and d2 is a point-type conductive material particle size (D50) of the first coating layer (PGPUB [0040]-[0042]). Claim 1 requires that the ratio of d2 to d1 is between 1:60 and 1:20. Using Equation 1, particles sizes having a ratio of d2 to d1 between 1:60 and 1:20 result in a contact angle of approximately 174-179°1, which is smaller than the claimed contact angle range of 150-180. Therefore the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not clearly defined.
Claims 3-13 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200176753A1) hereinafter "Lee" in view of Baek et al. (WO2019004704A1) hereinafter "Baek". Reference is made to the previously provided English translation of Baek.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising: a current collector (par. [0010] “negative electrode”, “current collector”; [abstract]); a first coating layer including a point-type (For the purpose of examination, point type conductive particles are interpreted as spherical particles, elliptical particles, plate-shaped particle, needle-like particles, and the like; see lower portion of page 15 of applicant’s specification) conductive material (par. [0070] “examples of the conductive material include: graphite, …carbon black…ketjen black…”; and par. [0010] “first carbonaceous negative electrode active material includes spherical shaped particles”; both the conductive material and the carbonaceous material can be considered a point-type conductive material) and a binder (par. [0010]; [abstract]), formed on the current collector; and a second coating layer including a silicon-based active material, formed on the first coating layer (par. [0010]; [abstract]). Lee teaches that the average particle diameter of the silicon-based active material is 6 µm (par. [0099]).
Lee does not teach wherein a contact angle between the point-type conductive material of the first coating layer and the silicon-based active material of the second coating layer is in the range of 150° to 180°.
However, Baek teaches a layered cathode with a lower cathode active material layer containing a sphere-type carbon based conductive material as a conductive material (par. [0010]; par. [0034]; conductive materials are used in both cathodes and anodes) with an average particle diameter of 10 to 500 nm (par. [0031]). Baek teaches that the use of the point-shaped carbon conductive material improves physical contact between active materials which reduces interfacial resistance and improves adhesion between the lower positive electrode active material and the current collector (par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sphere-type carbon conductive material with an average particle diameter of 10-500nm taught by Baek as the conductive additive in the negative electrode containing silicon-based active material of 6µm taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the sphere-type carbon conductive material with an average particle diameter of 10-500nm taught by Baek as the conductive additive in the negative electrode containing silicon-based active material of 6µm taught by Lee to improve improves physical contact between active materials which reduces interfacial resistance and improves adhesion between the lower positive electrode active material and the current collector (par. [0032] the examiner considers an improvement in physical contact from a point-shaped carbon conductive material to be true for an anode or cathode).
Lee in view of Baek teaches a first coating layer including a point-type conductive material formed on the current collector, and a second coating layer including a silicon-based active material, formed on the first coating layer (Lee par. [0010]; par. [0070]), where the silicon-based active material has an average particle size of 6 µm (Lee par. [0099]) and the point-type conductive material has an average particle size of 10-500nm (Baek par. [0031] sphere-type conductive material).
Therefore, Lee in view of Baek teaches wherein a contact angle between the point-type conductive material of the first coating layer and the silicon-based active material of the second coating layer is in the range of 150° to 180° (According to the instant specification contact angle is calculated by Equation 12on page 14; a Si-based active material has a particle size of 6000nm, and when the particle size of a point-type conductive material is, for example, 150nm then according to Equation 1 the contact angle would fall within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have tested differing particle sizes of a point-type conductive material within the range taught by Baek thereby reaching the contact angle claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches wherein a ratio between an average particle diameter (D50) of the point-type conductive material and an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon-based active material is 1:60 to 1:20 (Lee par. [0099]; Baek par. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have tested differing particle sizes of a point-type conductive material within the range taught by Baek thereby reaching the claimed ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches wherein the average particle diameter (D50) of the point-type conductive material is 100 to 200 nm (Baek par. [0031] “conductive material is substantially a sphere-type carbon-based conductive material” “having an average diameter in the range of 10-500 nm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have tested differing particle sizes of a point-type conductive material within the range taught by Baek. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the point-type conductive material includes at least one selected from carbon black and graphite-based materials (par. [0070] “examples of the conductive material include: graphite, …carbon black…”).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the binder is carboxymethyl cellulose (par. [0017]), a carboxymethyl cellulose derivative, polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylic acid, a polyacrylic acid derivative (par. [0017]), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon-based active material is 2 to 10 µm (par. [0065] “average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 0.01-10 µm; particularly in par. [0099] example 1-1 uses “silicon oxide having an average particle diameter of 6 µm as a silicon-based negative electrode active material”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches a secondary battery comprising: the negative electrode of claim 1 (see above); a positive electrode (Lee par. [0082] “positive electrode”); a separator disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Lee par. [0082]); and an electrolyte solution (Lee par. [0089] “electrolyte”).
Claims 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20200176753 A1) in view of Baek (WO2019004704A1) in further view of Wang et. al. (CN 105789556 A) hereinafter "Wang" Reference is made to the English translation of Wang.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1. Lee teaches where the first negative electrode mixture layer may have a thickness of 10-145 µm (par. [0074]).
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the first coating layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 2 µm.
However, Wang teaches an electrode sheet for a lithium-ion battery wherein the first coating layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 2 µm (par. [0026] “the first silicon material layer and the thickness of the outer conductive layer are independently selected from 1 micron to 200 micron”, par. [0054]).
Thus, Lee and Wang both disclose an electrode with a first coating layer of a certain thickness. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the first coating layer of Lee could be substituted with the thinner first coating layer taught by Wang because both serve the same function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done this with a reasonable expectation of success. It would be advantageous to reduce the amount of material used in production to reduce associated costs. The substitution achieves the predictable result of a functional electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first coating layer taught by Lee et. al. with the thinner first coating layer as taught by Wang et. al. to yield the predictable result of a functional electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 1.
Modified Lee does not teach where the negative electrode further comprises a third coating layer including a silicon-based active material, formed on the second coating layer.
However, Wang teaches where the negative electrode further comprises a third coating layer including a silicon-based active material, formed on the second coating layer (par. [0070]). Wang et. al. teaches that a multi-layer electrode sheet structure can provide sufficient buffer space for expansion and contraction of the layers (par. [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of modified Lee by adding a third coating layer as taught by Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add additional layers to the electrode taught by Lee et. al. to provide sufficient buffer space.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee in view of Wang teaches the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 9.
Wang further teaches wherein a content of the silicon-based active material in the second coating layer is higher than a content of the silicon-based active material in the third coating layer (par. [0023], par. [0024], par. [0025]).
Lee and Wang both disclose a multilayer electrode with a silicon content. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the silicon content of the layers could be varies and that a higher content of silicon in the second coating layer than in the third coating layer could be used because it falls withing the parameters of the design disclosed by Wang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a higher content of silicon in the second coating layer than in the third coating layer because it falls withing the parameters of the design disclosed by Wang (par. [0023], par. [0024], par. [0025]).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20200176753A1) in view of Baek (WO2019004704A1) in further view of Kim et al. (US20200243848A1) hereinafter "HM Kim".
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode for a secondary battery of claim 2. Lee teaches the use of carbonaceous active material in coating layers on either side of a layer containing a Si-based active material (par. [0010]).
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the second coating layer further includes a carbon-based active material, a binder, and a conductive material (par. [0010]).
However, HM Kim teaches a layered negative electrode with a first layer containing carbonaceous active material and a second layer containing si-based active material and a carbonaceous active material (par. [0031]-[0033] “the negative electrode active material of the second negative electrode active material layer may further include a carbonaceous active material in addition to the silicon-based active material”). HM Kim teaches that including carbonaceous active material in the second negative electrode layer may alleviate collapse of an electrode structure (par. [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by modified Lee by including a carbonaceous active material in the second coating layer as taught by HMKim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the electrode taught by modified Lee by including a carbonaceous active material in the second coating layer as taught by HMKim to alleviate collapse of an electrode structure (par. [0033]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20200176753A1) in view of Baek (WO2019004704A1) in further view of Kim et. al. (KR 20180058119 A) hereinafter "Kim". Reference is made to the English translation of Kim.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery of claim 11. Lee further teaches wherein the positive electrode includes: a current collector; a first positive electrode coating layer including a point-type conductive material and a binder, formed on the current collector (par. [0083]). Lee teaches the use of a Ni-based active material such as LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yO2 as the positive electrode active material (par. [0084]).
Modified Lee does not teach a second positive electrode coating layer including a Ni-based active material represented by Chemical Formula 1 [LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yO2 wherein a, x, and y satisfy: 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.05, 0.8 < x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.2], formed on the first positive electrode coating layer.
However, Kim teaches second positive electrode coating layer including a Ni-based active material overlapping with claimed Chemical Formula 1 ([LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yO2 wherein a, x, and y satisfy: 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.05, 0.8 < x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.2]), specifically LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzO2 wherein M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, Mo, and Cr, and 0.9≤a≤1.5, 0≤x≤0.5, 0≤y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.1, 0≤x+y≤0.7 (par. [0025]-[0027], the case where z = 0 and x+y ≤ 0.2), formed on the first positive electrode coating layer (par. [0022] “includes a second positive electrode mixer layer laminated on the first positive electrode mixture layer” and “the second positive electrode mixture layer includes a second positive electrode active material”). Kim further teaches that nickel-cobalt-manganese-based lithium composite metal oxide in which some of Ni is replaced with Mn and Co, simply referred to as 'NCM-based lithium oxide', has the advantage of relatively excellent cycle characteristics and thermal stability (par. [0006]-[0007]). Kim teaches that using a multilayer positive electrode can increase resistance in the case of damage to the electrode (par. [0035], par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode taught by modified Lee to be a multilayer positive electrode as taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an NCM type active material, because of its good cycle characteristics and thermal stability, in a multilayer electrode to increase resistance in the case of damage to the electrode (par. [0007], par. [0035], par. [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee in view of Kim teaches the secondary battery of claim 12.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein a ratio between an average particle diameter (D50) of the point-type conductive material and an average particle diameter (D50) of the N-based active material included in the positive electrode is 1:60 to 1:20.
However, Kim teaches wherein a ratio between an average particle diameter (D50) of the point-type conductive material and an average particle diameter (D50) of the Ni-based active material included in the positive electrode is 1:60 to 1:20 (par. [0047] "the average particle diameter of the second positive electrode active material may be 1 to 15 µm."; par. [0066] “The average particle diameter of the first and second conductive materials may be 5 to 150 nm”; the examiner is considering the first and second conductive materials as the “point-type” particles). Kim teaches the use of multiple positive electrode layers with differing average particle diameters of the positive electrode active material and the conductive material to improve the resistance and suppress overcurrent during damage to the electrode (par. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test different average particle diameters within the ranges disclosed by Kim. The claimed ratios of 1:60 to 1:20 for the average particle diameter of the point-type conductive material and the Ni-based active material are included within the range disclosed by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use positive electrode layers with differing average particle diameters of the positive electrode active material and the conductive material to improve the resistance and suppress overcurrent during damage to the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 For example, a conductive material having a D50 of 600-900nm (0.6-0.9µm), would need to be used with SiO particles having a D50 of 12-54µm, resulting in a ratio of 1:20-1:60 and a contact angle between 174-179°.
2
θ
=
2
x
cos
-
1
d
2
d
1
+
d
2
Prosecution Insights