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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, US 2020/0212426 A1 (hereinafter “Jang”) in view of Horikawa et al., US 2020/0388840 A1 (hereinafter “Horikawa”). Jang qualifies as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) with its effectively filed date of 2 January 2019. Horikawa qualifies as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) with its prior publication date of 10 December 2020.
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses an anode active material for a secondary (i.e., rechargeable) battery [title, abstract], said battery comprising:
a core particle (“anode active material (e.g. graphite or Si particles),” ¶ 0003, 0007-0013; “anode particulate,” ¶ 0016-0017; cf. Figs. 3(A)-3(C));
a polymer coating formed on the surface of the core particle (¶ 0021, 0029);
conductive particles formed on the polymer coating (“secondary active particles fully embraced by a polymer coating,” ¶ 0034), said conductive particles having an average particle diameter greater than a thickness of the polymer coating (Example Embodiment 5 and ¶ 0037, 0126, 0139-0140); wherein
the polymer coating includes at least one selected from polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyacrylonitrile, polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylamide, polymethyl methacrylate, and polyvinylchloride (i.e., the polymer comprises a carbon precursor material…such as PE, PVC [polyvinylchloride], and PET) [¶ 0029]
Jang is, however, silent regarding the disposition of the conductive particles in an island pattern. However, in the same field of endeavor, Horikawa discloses an electrode active material (i.e., electrode material) [¶ 0020] formed from a base particle (i.e., electrode active substance particle 12) [¶ 0042] coated at least partially with conductive particles (i.e., coating 14 containing a Ti-containing compound) [Id.] arranged in an island pattern (i.e., present in the form of islands (that is to say, scattered)) [¶ 0042; see Fig. 1] on the surface of the substrate particle. Jang and Horikawa are analogous art because both are drawn to electrode active materials comprising substrate particles coated with conductive particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the conductive particles of Jang in an island pattern to achieve the predictable result of a particle coated with conductive particles in an island suitable for use as an active material for a secondary battery. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this because the island pattern is attributed to improvements in low-temperature output characteristics, high-temperature cycle characteristics, and durability against high voltage, as suggested by Horikawa [¶ 0043]. The skilled artisan would further expect the aforementioned benefits to apply equally to an anode active material due to the electrochemical reversibility of secondary cells.
Additionally, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further depicts: at least some of the conductive particles are inserted into the polymer coating and protrude to an outside from a surface of the polymer coating (Fig. 3A-3C).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further discloses:
the core particle comprises a graphite-based active material, an amorphous carbon-based material, a silicon-based active material, or a mixture of two or more therefrom (“graphite or Si particles,” ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further discloses:
the core particle comprises artificial graphite (“artificial (or synthetic) graphite,” ¶ 0003, 0019, 0021).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further discloses:
the thickness of the polymer coating is in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm (“the coating layer thickness is preferably in the range from 1 nm to 20 μm,” ¶ 0037)
The claimed range of 1-100 nm overlaps the prior art range of 1 nm to 20 µm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges overlap (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) or are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further discloses:
the average particle diameter of the conductive particles is in a range from 30 nm to 1 µm (“particles include powder, flakes, beads, pellets, spheres, wires, fibers, filaments, discs, ribbons, or rods, having a diameter or thickness from 2 nm to 20 μm,” ¶ 0044)
The claimed range of 30 nm to 1 µm is contained entirely within the prior art range of 2 nm to 20 µm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges overlap (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) or are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further depicts:
at least some of the conductive particles penetrate the polymer coating to contact the core particle (Fig. 3A-3C).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further discloses:
the conductive particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium titanate (LTO), Super P, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon flake, activated carbon, graphene, carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber and a metal fiber (“conductive filler (e.g., carbon black or carbon nanotube),” ¶ 0003).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang further discloses a secondary battery (title, abstract) comprising:
a cathode (¶ 0057) comprising a lithium metal oxide (¶ 0024); and
an anode facing the cathode (¶ 0057)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang, US 2020/0212426 A1 in view of Horikawa et al., US 2020/0388840 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Braun et al., CN 104471752 A (hereinafter “Braun”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Jang is silent regarding the molecular weight of the polymer coating. However, in the same field of endeavor, Braun discloses a composite particle for use in an anode active material comprising a core particle coated in a polymer (¶ 0018-0053), said polymer having a molecular weight in the range of 100,000 to 3,000,000 g mol-–1 (¶ 0041, 0044). This prior art range overlaps the claimed range of 50,000 or more or 500,000 or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges overlap (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) or are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Jang does not teach a polymer coating (pp. 8 and 9). The examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a uniform, unbroken layer of polymer coating) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Jang does not teach its conductive particle protrudes to an outside from a surface of the polymer coating. The examiner disagrees. Jang’s Figure 3A illustrates portions of its conductive particles protruding to an outside from the surface of the coating.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the combination of Horikawa and Jang is improper because a APOSITA would understand that a Horikawa’s cathode and Jang’s anode are not interchangeable. The examiner notes that 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). In the instant case, the examiner is merely relying on Horikawa for its broad teaching of an island pattern on an electrode. It’s the examiner’s position that it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this teaching to Jang’s anode in order to achieve the predictable result of obtaining a particle coated with conductive particles for use as an active material for a secondary battery.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
jj
Prosecution Insights