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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 24, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed June 24, 2025 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; support for claim 1 can be found in cancelled claim 5. Claims 1, 4, and 6-15 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a thickener.” It is unclear if this is the same thickener as recited in claim 1 or an additional thickener. For examination purposes, the thickener in claim 10 will be examined as the same thickener from 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.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20150121694 A) in view of Ko et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2019/0123352 A1), in view of Seol et al. (KR 20170069153 A, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 2018/0219212 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park, Ko, and Seol.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a lithium second battery having high electrode capacity and excellent efficiency (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Park teaches a negative electrode plate (“a negative electrode”) for a lithium secondary battery comprising a current collector (“a negative electrode current collector”) (see e.g., paragraph [0062]) and a negative electrode material comprising silicon alloy, graphite, single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (see e.g., paragraph [0025]), a binder, and a thickener (“a negative electrode active material layer formed on the negative electrode current collector and comprising a negative electrode active material containing a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material, a binder, a thickener, and single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Park teaches the electrode comprises a negative electrode active material Park teaches the SWCNT dispersion is included at 0.05 wt% to 0.3 wt% (“wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates are comprises at 0.008 wt% to 0.055 wt% in the negative electrode active material layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Because Park teaches the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon alloy in 5.8 wt% to 8 wt% (see e.g., paragraph [0010]) and the electrode comprises a negative electrode active material Park teaches the SWCNT dispersion is included at 0.05 wt% to 0.3 wt%, the approximate ratio of SWCNT to the silicon alloy is 0.05:1 when SWCNT is included at 0.3 wt% and the silicon alloy is included at 5.8 wt% in the negative electrode active material, meeting the claim limitation “wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates are comprises at 0.05 parts by weight to 0.37 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material in the negative electrode active material layer.”
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the SWCNT dispersion included at 0.05 wt% to 0.3 wt% overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Park does not explicitly teach wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a silicon-based oxide and a silicon-carbon composite and wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregate is a secondary structure formed by aggregating two or more single-walled carbon nanotube monomers.
However, Ko teaches an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery includes a current collector and an active material layer on the current collector (see e.g., Abstract). Ko teaches the active material includes an active material, carbon nanotubes, and nanocarbon (see e.g., paragraph [0016]). Ko teaches the active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite (“wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a silicon-based oxide and a silicon-carbon composite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0055]) to improve specific resistivity characteristics of an electrode and high-rate charge/discharge characteristics as well as improved low temperature characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the silicon in the negative electrode active material of Park to be a silicon-carbon composite, as taught by Ko, in order to improve specific resistivity characteristics of an electrode and high-rate charge/discharge characteristics as well as improved low temperature characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Park, as modified by Ko, does not explicitly teach wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregate is a secondary structure formed by aggregating two or more single-walled carbon nanotube monomers.
Seol teaches an electrode for a secondary battery comprising conductive material that includes bundle-type carbon nanotubes (see e.g., Abstract). Seol teaches “bundle-type” refers to the arrangement of a plurality of carbon nanotube strands, i.e., carbon nanotube units, in parallel to each other such that longitudinal axes of the units are arranged in substantially the same orientation, or a secondary form such as a spirally wound bundle form or rope form (see e.g., paragraph [0024]). Seol teaches the carbon nanotubes refer to a secondary structure formed by aggregating carbon nanotube units to entirely or partially form a bundle form and may be classified into single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) (“wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregate is a secondary structure formed by aggregating two or more single-walled carbon nanotube monomers”) (see e.g., paragraph [0053]). Seol teaches the dispersibility of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the electrode active material layer is increased without deterioration of discharge pulse resistance characteristics and cycle characteristics of a battery, thereby producing a battery with significantly enhanced characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the carbon nanotubes of Park, as modified by Ko, to be bundle-type carbon nanotubes, i.e., a plurality of carbon nanotube units, to form a secondary structure, as taught by Seol, in order to increase the dispersibility of the bundle-type carbon nanotubes in the electrode active material layer without deterioration of discharge pulse resistance characteristics and cycle characteristics of a battery, thereby producing a battery with significantly enhanced characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park teaches the negative electrode material comprises graphite (“wherein the carbon-based active material is at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park teaches the negative electrode active material comprising the silicon alloy is included at 5.8 to 8 wt% and the graphite is included at 88.70 to 91.17 wt% (see e.g., paragraph [0009]); therefore, the ratio of the silicon alloy to the graphite is (5.8-8):(88.70-97.17), meeting the claim limitation of “wherein the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon-based active material and the carbon-based active material in a weight ratio of 1:99 to 30:70.”
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because a ratio of (5.8-8):(88.70-97.17) overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 7, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, does not explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode active material are comprised at 70 to 99 wt% in the negative electrode active material layer.
However, Ko teaches the content of the negative active material may be about 95 wt % to about 98 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material layer (“wherein the negative electrode active material are comprised at 70 to 99 wt% in the negative electrode active material layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0060]) in order to improve cycle-life characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the negative electrode active material of Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, to have a content of the negative active material may be about 95 wt % to about 98 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material layer, as taught by Ko, in order to improve cycle-life characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0009]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the weight percentage of about 95 wt % to about 98 wt % overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 8, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, does not explicitly teach wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates have an average length of 3 µm to 20 µm.
However, Seol teaches the length of nanotube units have a length of 0.5 μm to 200 μm (“wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates have an average length of 3 µm to 20 µm”) (see e.g., paragraph [0056]). Ko teaches that as the length of the carbon nanotube units increases, electrical conductivity, strength, and lifespan characteristics of the electrode at room temperature and a high temperature may be enhanced; however, Ko teaches when the length of the carbon nanotube units is too large, dispersibility may be reduced, and when the length of the carbon nanotube units is small, it is difficult to efficiently form a conductive path, and thus electrical conductivity of the positive electrode may be reduced (see e.g., paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the carbon nanotubes of Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, to have a length of 0.5 µm to 200 µm, as taught by Seol, in order to increase electrical conductivity, strength, and lifespan characteristics of the electrode at room temperature and a high temperature while maintain dispersibility (see e.g., paragraph [0056]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the length of 0.5 µm to 200 µm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 9, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Ko teaches the carbon nanotubes may have an average diameter of about 1 nm to about 20 nm (“wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates have an average diameter of 3 nm to 20 nm) (see e.g., paragraph [0019]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because average diameter of about 1 nm to about 20 nm overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 15, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). Ko teaches a positive electrode (“a positive electrode disposed to face the negative electrode”), a separator disposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode (“a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode”), and an electrolyte solution impregnating the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator (“an electrolyte”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20150121694 A) in view of Ko et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2019/0123352 A1) and Seol et al. (KR 20170069153 A, citations from corresponding Published U.S. Patent Application US 2018/0219212 A1), and further in view of Koo et al. (KR 20140149080 A), hereinafter referred to as Koo.
Regarding claim 10, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park teaches the thickener is carboxymethyl cellulose (“wherein the thickener comprises first carboxymethylcellulose”) (see e.g., paragraph [0035]).
Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, does not explicitly teach wherein the thickener comprises the first carboxymethylcellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 800,000 to 1,600,000 and a second carboxymethylcellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 350,000 to 750,000.
However, Koo teaches an electrode active material slurry including a) an electrode active material, b) a conductive material, c) a binder, and d) a thickener (see e.g., Abstract). Koo teaches the thickener comprises a first cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000 and a second cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 100,000 or more and less than 500,000 (“wherein the thickener comprises a first carboxymethylcellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 800,000 to 1,600,000 and a second carboxymethylcellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 350,000 to 750,000”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Koo teaches the thickener with two or more kinds of cellulosic compounds having different weight average molecular weights improve capacity and rate characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the binder comprising carboxylmethyl cellulose of Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, to be a first cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000 and a second cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 100,000 or more and less than 500,000, as taught by Koo, in order to improve capacity and rate characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0001]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000 and a molecular weight of 100,000 or more and less than 500,000 overlap with the recited ranges, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 11, Park, as modified by Ko, Seol, and Koo, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Park, as modified by Ko, Seol, and Koo, teaches the mixing ratio of the first cellulose-based compound: the second cellulose compound is preferably 2.0 to 85%: 98 to 25% (“wherein the first carboxymethylcellulose and the second carboxymethylcellulose are comprises in a weight ratio of 12:1 to 100:1 in the negative electrode active material layer”) (see e.g., Koo paragraph [0011]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because ratio of 2:98 and 85:25 overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 12, Park, as modified by Ko, Seol, and Koo, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 10, as previously described.
Park teaches the thickener is included in an amount of 0.01 to 2 wt% (“wherein the thickener is comprised at 0.5 to 5 wt% in the negative electrode active material layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0015]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because an amount of 0.01 to 2 wt% overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 13, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Park teaches a negative electrode plate for a lithium secondary battery comprising a current collector (see e.g., paragraph [0062]) and a negative electrode material comprising silicon alloy, graphite, single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) (see e.g., paragraph [0025]), a binder, and a thickener (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Park teaches the silicon alloy, thickener, binder, graphite, and single-walled carbon nanotubes are mixed (“adding and mixing a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material, a binder, single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates, and first carboxymethylcellulose and preparing a negative electrode slurry”). Park teaches the active material is coated onto a current collector and manufactured by a conventional process (“coating a negative electrode current collector with the negative electrode slurry and drying the negative electrode slurry”) (see e.g., paragraph [0062]). Because Park teaches the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon alloy in 5.8 wt% to 8 wt% (see e.g., paragraph [0010]) and the electrode comprises a negative electrode active material Park teaches the SWCNT dispersion is included at 0.05 wt% to 0.3 wt%, the approximate ratio of SWCNT to the silicon alloy is 0.05:1 when SWCNT is included at 0.3 wt% and the silicon alloy is included at 5.8 wt% in the negative electrode active material, meeting the claim limitation “wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates are comprises at 0.05 parts by weight to 0.37 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material in the negative electrode active material layer.”
As previously described in claim 1, Ko teaches the active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite (“wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a silicon-based oxide and a silicon-carbon composite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0055]) to improve specific resistivity characteristics of an electrode and high-rate charge/discharge characteristics as well as improved low temperature characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, does not explicitly teach a first carboxymethylcellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 800,000 to 1,600,000.
However, Koo teaches an electrode active material slurry including a) an electrode active material, b) a conductive material, c) a binder, and d) a thickener (see e.g., Abstract). Koo teaches the thickener comprises a first cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000 and a second cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 100,000 or more and less than 500,000 (“wherein the thickener comprises a first carboxymethylcellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 800,000 to 1,600,000”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Koo teaches the thickener with two or more kinds of cellulosic compounds having different weight average molecular weights improve capacity and rate characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the thickener comprising carboxylmethyl cellulose of Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, to be a first cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000, as taught by Koo, in order to improve capacity and rate characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0001]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000 overlaps with the recited ranges, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 14, Park, as modified by Ko and Seol, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 13, Koo teaches the thickener comprises a first cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 500,000 or more and less than 2,000,000 and a second cellulose-based compound having a molecular weight of 100,000 or more and less than 500,000 (“the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates are prepared by”) (see e.g., paragraph [0010]). Koo teaches the thickener with two or more kinds of cellulosic compounds having different weight average molecular weights improve capacity and rate characteristics (see e.g., paragraph [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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 T 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728