ETAILED 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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 3-5 and 7-12 are as previously presented, claims 2 and 6 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-12 are currently examined.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that in claim 1 lines 8 and 13-14 and in claim 14 line 8 and 13-14 applicant recites the “CMC-based component is a CMC thickener” and “CMC based carbon nanotube dispersing agent”. Applicant claims a CMC-based component and its intended use, i.e. thickener, or (carbon nanotube) dispersing agent.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
CMC-based components are known in the art as a common binder capable of being used as both a thickener and dispersing agent for carbon nanotubes. Prior art to support this can be found in the conclusion section.
Because CMC-based components are capable of being both thickening and dispersing agents. The BRI of a “CMC thickener” and “CMC based carbon nanotube dispersing agent” is met if a CMC-based component is present in the material.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP 3739674 A1) in view of Kim (EP 3678228 A2) and Bae (US20200295360A1) .
For claim 1 and 14-15, Lee discloses an anode for a secondary battery (abstract), comprising: an anode electrode current collector (abstract, fig. 1 (82)); and an anode active material layer (80) comprising a first anode active material layer (84) and a second anode active material layer (86) (fig. 1), the first anode active material layer formed on a surface of the anode current collector (abstract, fig. 1 (84)), wherein the first anode active material layer comprises a carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)-based component (0012), a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR)-based binder (0012), and a first anode active material (abstract) consisting of artificial graphite (0045, 0053); wherein the CMC-based component is a CMC thickener (0038), and the second anode active material layer formed on the first anode active material layer (abstract, fig. 1 (86)), wherein the second anode active material layer comprises a second anode active material including a silicon- based active material (0063).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Lee (EP 3739674 A1)
Lee is silent to: 1) the use of carbon nanotubes being excluded from the first conductive material and being used as a second conductive material and wherein the second conductive material does not include a dot-type structure. 2) the ratio of the second electrode being 50-60% of the total thickness of the first active material layer. 3) the binder of the second layer being made of a CMC-based component and SBR-based binder. 4) the total content of CMC-based component in the second layer being greater than the total content of CMC-based component in the first layer. 5) a total content of the SBR-based binder in the first anode active material layer being greater than the total content in the SBR-based binder in the second anode active material layer.
However, in regard to 1), 2), 3), and 5) Kim discloses an anode with a first active material layer comprising artificial graphite and a second active material layer consisting of silicon and carbon nanotubes (0090-0091, Kim), along with the exclusion of carbon nanotubes as a first conductive material (0051-0059, fig. 2 Kim) and the use of and carbon nanotube as a second conductive material (abstract, 0009, 0032, fig. 2 Kim), and the second conductive material does not include a dot-type structure (0032-0034, fig. 3, Kim). (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
414
899
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, Kim (EP 3678228 A2)
PNG
media_image3.png
329
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, Kim (EP 3678228 A2)
Kim also discloses that the thickness of the first negative electrode layer and the second negative electrode layer may be 90:10-10:90, 90:10-30:70, or 90:10-50:50 [0061, Kim. For instance a ratio of 60:40 of a first to second negative electrode layer would provide an electrode where the thickness of the second layer is 50-60% of the first layer]. (2)
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filling date, one of ordinary skill in the arts would have been obvious to incorporate carbon nanotubes as a conductive material being positioned on the surface of a silicon-based active material. As a result, it is possible to inhibit generation of an electrically isolated silicon-based material in the lithium secondary battery according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, even after repeating charge/discharge cycles, and thus to inhibit degradation of discharge capacity and to improve cycle characteristics. (0019, Kim).
One of ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious to modify the thickness of the electrode layers such that the second negative electrode layer is greater than 50% and less than or equal to 60% of a total thickness of the first negative electrode layer. When the thickness ratio satisfies the above-defined range, the first negative electrode active material layer, the second negative electrode active material layer and the current collector are bound well to form a conductive path (0061, Kim).
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that should the applicant feel that Lee does not teach a first active material consisting of artificial graphite that Kim teaches this feature (0090, Kim). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts such that the first active material consisted of artificial graphite as it is common anode active material that can produce an electrode with high capacity maintenance (Table 1, Kim).
Kim continues to teach the first and second layer of the electrode both being comprised of a binder being made of a CMC-based component and SBR-based binder (0090-0091, Kim). (3)
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the second anode active material layer comprises a CMC-based components and an SBR-based binder. Doing so will provide a mixture that is known to work in anode with two active material layers, including a layer comprising silicon-based active material and carbon nanotubes (0090-0091, Kim).
For clarity of the record, as noted above in the claim interpretation section, CMC is a known material that functions as both a thickener and dispersing agent.
Finally, Kim teaches of an anode active material layer were the thickness of the second active material layer is greater than 50% and less than or equal to 60% (as modified/noted above). The weight ratio of active material:binder in the first and second active layer are 95:3.5, where the weight ratio of SBR:CMC is 2.3:1.2. Because the second active material layer is thicker than the first, the total weight/mass/content of CMC-based component in the second layer will be greater than that of the first layer (0090-0091, Kim). (4)
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the total content of CMC-based binder in the first active material layer is greater than that in the second active material layer. Doing so will provide a mixture that is known to work in anode with two active material layers, including a layer comprising silicon-based active material and carbon nanotubes (0090-0091, Kim).
In regards to 5) Bae teaches of an electrode comprised of a current collector with a first active material layer on the current collector and a second active material layer disposed on the first active material layer (fig. 1, Bae). Bae notes that the amount of binder (“SBR-based binder”) may be present in a larger amount in the layer in contact with the current collector (0040-0041, 0115-0118, Bae). (5)
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee the concentration of the SBR-based binder was larger in the first active material layer than the second active material layer. Doing so allows for greater adhesion to the conductive substrate while inhibiting an increase in interfacial resistance in the second active layer (0041, Bae).
Claim 14-15 feature the exact same limitations as those present in claim 1. As such, the rejections of claim 1 are applied to claim 14 and claim 15.
For claim 3, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery, wherein the second anode active material comprises a mixture of artificial graphite and the silicon-based active material (0060-0064, Lee).
For claim 4, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery, wherein a content of the silicon-based active material based on a total weight of the second anode active material is from 9 wt% to 30 wt%. (104, table 2, Lee discloses a weight of silicon active material in the range of 11-23 wt% anticipating the applicants claimed range).
For claim 5, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery, wherein a content of the silicon-based active material based on a total weight of the second anode active material is from 10 wt% to 20 wt%. (104, table 2, Lee discloses a weight of silicon active material in the range of 11-18.5 wt% anticipating the applicants claimed range).
For claim 7, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery, wherein the first anode active material layer is in contact with the surface of the anode current collector, and the second anode active material layer is in contact with a top surface of the first anode active material layer. (0010, 0023 0043-0044, 0073, Lee).
For claim 8, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first anode active material further comprises a first conductive material that is a carbon-based material except for carbon nanotube. (0046, Lee).
For claim 9, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery, wherein the first conductive material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of graphene, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, Super P and hard carbon. (0046, hard carbon, 0058, carbon black and graphene, Lee).
For claim 11, Lee as modified above discloses the anode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), a silicon alloy, SiOx (0<x<2), and SiOx (0<x<2) containing a lithium compound. (0047, Lee).
For claim 12, Lee as modified above discloses a lithium secondary battery (0092-0095, fig. 2, Lee), comprising: the anode (fig. 1 (80), Lee) for a secondary battery according to claim 1; and a cathode (fig. 1 (70), Lee) facing the anode and comprising a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (0035-0037, Lee).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to claims 1 and 14 and in view of Jung (US20150236340A1).
Regarding claim 17-18, modified Lee The anode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein: the first anode active material layer consists of 1.5 wt% of the CMC thickener (0102,Lee’s disclosed range anticipates the applicants claimed range of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%), 2 wt% of the SBR-binder (0102, Lee’s disclosed range anticipates the applicants claimed range of 1 wt% to 5 wt%), from 90 wt% to 98 wt% of the first anode active material (0059, 0102, Lee’s range anticipates the applicants claimed range), each based on a total solid content of the first anode active material layer (0059, 0102, Lee).
In regards to the claimed limitation “and optionally from 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% of a first conductive material that is a carbon-based material except for carbon nanotube”. Because the applicant notes that this is optional the limitation is met.
In the interest of compact prosecution however, the examiner notes that Lee teaches of a conductive additive in a range of 0.5-5 wt% (0059, Lee’s disclosed range anticipates the applicant’s claimed range).
Modified Lee continues to teach of the second anode active material layer consists of approximately 1.1 wt% of the CMC thickener (0090-0091, Kim teaches of the binder comprised of SBR and CMC being 3.5wt% where the amount of CMC is ~1/3 the total content of the binder. This anticipates the applicant’s claimed range), approximately 2.3wt% of the SBR-based binder (0090-0091, Kim teaches of the binder comprised of SBR and CMC being 3.5wt% where the amount of SBR is ~2/3 the total content of the binder. This anticipates the applicant’s claimed range), 95 wt% of the second anode active material (0091, Kim’s disclosed range anticipates the applicant’s claimed range of 90 wt% to 98 wt%), CNT as a second conductive material may be present in 0.5wt% (0091, Kim’s disclosed range anticipates the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1-5 wt%).
As noted above, the claimed limitation of CMC-based carbon nanotube dispersing agent is intended use as CMC is a known dispersing agent. As such any amount of CMC may be considered to be the “CMC-dispersing agent”. However in the interest of compact prosecution the examiner will notes the following.
Modified Lee is explicitly silent to the amount of CMC-based component that is used as a “dispersing agent”.
However, Jung discloses a SiOx-CMC-CNT composite where CMC is used to uniformly disperse CNT onto the surface of SiOx (0013, 0018, 0030, Jung). Where CMC and CNT are present in equal wt ratios (0032, Jung). An additional binder material of SBR and CMC (as a thickener) is used to manufacture the electrode (0053, Jung).
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that an CMC (as a dispersing agent) and CNT were used in equal weight ratio’s. Doing so allows one to uniformly distribute the CNT over the SiOx active material (0030, Jung).
The examiner notes, that as presently modified, because CNT and the “CMC-based carbon nanotube dispersing agent” are present in equal quantities then the CMC-based carbon nanotubes dispersing agent is present in 0.5 wt%. This anticipates the applicant’s claimed range of 0.05-0.5wt%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional detail.
Applicant argues that Lee in view of Kim fails to disclose or suggest the second anode active material layer comprising CMC-based components consisting of CMC thickener and dispersing agent. As stated in the rejection above, these limitations are based off of the intended use of CMC. CMC is a known material whose properties are known to include function as both a thickening and dispersing agent.
Applicant then argues the total content of CMC-based components being greater in the second layer than the first. As noted in the rejection of claim 1, because the second layer is thicker than the first and the slurry mixture comprises equal wt ratios of the binder in the first and second layer. Then the total content (total mass) of CMC in the second layer is greater than the first.
Applicant then continues to argue the functional/intended use of CMC. These arguments have already been addressed in the present office action.
Applicant continues by arguing the prior art not teaching the same teachings of the instant applicant. To which the examiner notes that the prior art is not required to provide the same teachings as the instant applicant. Rather the final product is what is examined.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
Applicant then argues their instant specification and data presented. The examiner does not find this to be persuasive as A) the presented arguments do not consider the modified structure presented by the examiner. B) the applicant’s arguments for their data are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Namely the data presented in the Table is far narrower than that of claim 1.
Applicant then argues the total content of SBR in the first and second layer. The examiner has introduced Bae in response to this new amendment.
Finally applicant argues the acrylic based binder of Lee. This argument centers around arguing the references individually as it does not represent the structure of modified Lee.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by 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).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Applications of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as a binder in batteries”: discloses CMC being used as a thickener and dispersing agent for carbon materials. CMC commonly used with SBR in anodes. Figgemeier (US20160111718A1) discloses CMC being used to disperse CNT.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner would like to address what they believe to be applicants attended amendment to claim 1. Do (WO2020071814A1) discloses an anode with a first active material layer containing graphite and a second active material layer containing silicon oxide and a carbonaceous material [0020, Do]. The thickness ratio between the first negative electrode material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer is (35-45) : (55-65) [0052, Do]. (04/11/2025).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/Q.D.E./
Examiner, art unit 4153
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights