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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, 11 & 25 are amended. Claims 3, 10, 21-22 & 28 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-20 & 23-27 are currently pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-20 & 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez (US 2011/0111294 A1) in view of Takezawa (US 2013/0302688 A1), Fukuoka (US 2014/0113192 A1), Kumar (US 2012/0028105 A1), Buckley (US 2009/0263707 A1), Masarapu (US 2013/0295439 A1) and evidenced by Lestriez (US 2012/0276451 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16-20 & 24-26, Lopez teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode comprising lithium metal oxide ([0061]), a negative electrode comprising a powder of a silicon based active material having a specific capacity of at least about 750 mAh/g at a rate of C/3 when cycled from 1.5 V to 0.005 V against lithium with an active material loading of at least 2 mg/cm2 and density of at least about 0.6 g/cc; carbon nanofibers as electrically conductive agents/particles; and a polymer binder (Fig. 12; [0054], [0079], [0081]-[0082], [0092] & [0148]-[0153]), a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0106]), supplemental lithium preloaded into the battery prior to assembly thereof ([0100]-[0101] & [0119]) and an electrolyte comprising lithium ions ([0106] & [0116]), wherein the lithium-ion battery has a balance of negative electrode capacity relative to the sum of positive electrode capacity and supplemental lithium of no more than about 1.1 ([0108]).
However, Lopez is silent as to (1) the supplemental lithium being present in an amount to compensate for 110% to 170% of the negative electrode first cycle irreversible capacity loss; (2) the battery having a 330th cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35 V to 2.75 V that is at least 80% and at least 85% of the 5th cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35 V to 2.75 V (respectively claims 1 & 4) and a 400th cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35 V to 2.75 V that is at least 70% (claim 5); (3) the battery exhibiting a volumetric energy density of at least 550 Wh/L at a rate of C/10 discharged from 4.35V to 2.75V; (4) a silicon based active material comprising a silicon-suboxide-carbon composite (claim 2); (5) a 400th cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35 V to 2.75 V that is at least 80% of the fifth cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35V to 2.75V (claim 25); and (6) the negative electrode powder being formed on both sides of a current collector having a thickness from 4 microns to 14 microns. Takezawa teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator placed between the positive and negative electrode and a supplemental lithium provided to compensate for at least 110% and at most 200% of the irreversible capacity loss of the negative electrode (Abstract & [0144]-[0145]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use an amount of supplemental lithium to compensate for between 110% and 200% of the first cycle irreversible capacity loss of the negative electrode in order to effectively reduce the influence of the rise of the negative electrode potential on the positive electrode potential while ensuring the possibility of providing a sufficiently large battery capacity as taught by Takezawa ([0144]-[0145]). “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Jn re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. See MPEP 2144.05 I. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. See MPEP 2144.05 II (B). Fukuoka teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode active material comprising a physical blend of a particulate silicon based-carbon composite including a silicon oxide such as SiO with a carbon coating; and a distinct particulate graphitic carbon having an average particle diameter of 10 microns, wherein the graphitic carbon makes up 30 wt% to 35 wt% of the active material ([0025]-[0045] & [0054]). Fukuoka further teaches a negative electrode including 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% (with a specific embodiment using 10 wt%) of a binder such as polyimide along with the negative electrode active material ([0043] & [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use an electrode active material as described in Fukuoka above in view of obtaining high capacity and improved cycle performance as taught by Fukuoka ([0019]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include polyimide in the negative electrode in view of increasing bond strength between the negative electrode components and thus improving cycle performance ([0026]). Kumar teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode including compositions as described in Ser. No. 13/108,708 to Deng et al. entitled: "Silicon Oxide Based High Capacity Anode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries” which is incorporated by reference ([0065]). Deng teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon suboxide-carbon composite, wherein the carbon comprises graphitic carbon in an amount of 30 wt% to 45 wt% based on the total weight of the active material ([0038]-[0039], [0046]-[0049], [0096]-[0097], [0100], [0115]-[0116] & [0166]). Deng also teaches the inclusion of supplemental lithium in an amount to compensate for all, or 100%, of the negative electrode first cycle irreversible capacity loss ([0044] & [0138]). Deng further teaches a negative active material loading ranging from 2.25 mg/cm2 to 3.29 mg/cm2 although a negative active material loading of greater than 2 mg/cm2 is broadly taught (Fig. 13; [0023] & [0104]) and a negative active material density of at least about 0.6 g/cc ([0104]) with exemplary embodiments using densities of 1.9 and 2.0 g/cc (Table 3B). In certain embodiments, the negative electrode further comprises an electrically conductive agent such as carbon nanofibers ([0100] & [0112]). Deng also teaches that significant improvements in the specific capacity and the cycling properties of the battery can be attained with the addition of halogenated carbonates such as fluoroethylene carbonate to the electrolyte ([0076]). The fluoroethylene carbonate is contained in the electrolyte in amount of about 1 volume percent to about 35 volume percent halogenated carbonate, in further embodiments from about 2 volume percent to about 30 volume percent and in other embodiments from about 3 volume percent to about 25 volume percent halogenated carbonate based on the total volume of the electrolyte ([0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to add fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte when using a silicon-based active material in the negative electrode results because it results in significant improvements in specific capacity and cycling properties of the battery. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to optimize the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte as a result effective variable from the viewpoint of optimizing the capacity and cycling properties of the battery as taught by Deng ([0076]). “[A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. See MPEP 2144.05 II (B). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carbon nanofibers in the negative electrode in order to provide good electrical conductivity as taught by Deng ([0112]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to limit the loading and density of the negative electrode to the ranges cited above as being suitable for lithium-ion battery electrodes including a silicon-based active material as taught by Deng. Masarapu teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode comprising a current collector and a powder of active material including a silicon-based composite; distinct electrically conductive particles and a polymer binder, wherein the negative electrode powder is formed on both sides of a current collector having a thickness of 4 microns to 14 microns (Fig. 2d; [0030]-[0038], [0040], [0049] & [0074]-[0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a current collector having a thickness of 4 microns to 14 microns as a suitable thickness for current collector such as a copper foil used in negative electrodes of a lithium-ion battery.” The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. See MPEP 2144.07. While Lopez as modified by Takezawa and Kumar does not explicitly teach the properties listed under (2), it is noted that the lithium-ion battery of Lopez as modified by Takezawa, Kumar and Fukuoka is substantially structurally and compositionally identical to the presently claimed lithium-ion battery. Accordingly, the properties listed in (2) are expected to be inherently present within the modified battery of Lopez. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. As to (3), volumetric energy densities of at least 500 Wh/L are desirable for many applications including portable appliances such as cellular telephones and computers as evidenced by Lestriez ([0004]) and can be obtained for lithium-ion batteries based on a desired shape and size of the battery as taught by Buckley ([0056] & [0061]) using known positive electrode compositions and negative electrode compositions as noted in Lopez, Fukuoka and Kumar (which incorporates Deng). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a volumetric energy density of at least 550 Wh/l at a rate of C/10 discharged from 4.35V to 2.75V, in view of the teachings of Lopez, Fukuoka and Kumar which employ the positive and negative electrode compositions of the present invention.
Regarding claim 6, Lopez as modified by Takezawa, Kumar, Fukuoka, Masarapu and Buckley teaches the lithium ion battery of claim 1. Modified Lopez further teaches the claimed negative electrode loading and density, as noted above, but is silent as to the positive electrode having a loading from 12 mg/cm2 to 35 mg/cm2 and a density of active material from 3.2 g/cc to 4.5 g/cc. Buckley teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode including an active material with a loading of 20 mg/cm2 to 50 mg/cm2 and a density of about 3.0 g/cc to about 3.5 g/cc ([0016] & [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to employ a positive electrode loading and density, as described in Buckley above, in order to provide a lithium-ion battery with a high total energy and energy density as taught by Buckley ([0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Lopez as modified by Takezawa, Fukuoka, Kumar, Masarapu and Buckley teaches the lithium ion battery of claim 1. Fukuoka further teaches wherein the negative electrode further comprises from 12 wt% to 30 wt% graphitic carbon active material relative to the total active material weight ([0024]-[0045] & [0054]) but is silent as to the lithium ion battery having a 300th cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35 V to 2.75 V that is at least 80% of the 5th cycle discharge capacity at a discharge rate of C/3 discharged from 4.35 V to 2.75 V. However, it is noted that the lithium-ion battery of modified Lopez is substantially structurally and compositionally identical to the presently claimed lithium-ion battery. Accordingly, the presently claimed property is expected to be inherently present within the modified battery of Lopez. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 9 & 15, Lopez teaches the electrodes being wound in a cylindrical shape ([0060]).
Regarding claims 23 & 27, Lopez teaches the battery having a prismatic shape ([0060]) but is silent as to a battery volume from 1,000 mm3 to 50,000 mm3 a stack with 7 to 16 layers of positive electrode (claim 23) and is silent as to a battery volume from 500 mm3 to 100,000 mm3 (claim 27). However, the volume of the battery is a result effective variable which affects the volumetric energy density of the battery. When the battery volume is minimized for a given capacity of the battery, the volumetric energy density of the battery can be maximized whereas a larger battery volume for a given capacity does not efficiently make use of the total battery volume which is undesirable as disclosed in Buckley ([0056]-[0061]). Furthermore, the number of positive electrode layers is a result effective variable which affects the total capacity the battery is capable of delivering as taught by Kumar ([0052] & [0056]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an optimal battery volume as well as the number of positive electrode layers within the battery as a design choice. For instance, batteries required to deliver higher capacities will have larger battery volumes and/or increased number of positive electrode layers whereas batteries required to deliver lower capacities will have smaller battery volumes and/or less number of positive electrode layers. “[A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. See MPEP 2144.05 II (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the combination of the cited art does not provide a reasonable expectation of success with respect to the practice of the presently claimed invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that, absent the guidance provided by the instant specification, the cited references would not guide a person of ordinary skill in the art to construct a battery with the claimed feature and overcome the deficiencies of Lopez, Deng and Masarapu. However, it is noted that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as noted in the above rejection of claim 1, Fukuoka renders obvious the use of a negative electrode active material comprising a physical blend of a particulate silicon based-carbon composite including a silicon oxide such as SiO with a carbon coating; and a distinct particulate graphitic carbon having an average particle diameter of 10 microns, wherein the graphitic carbon makes up 30 wt% to 35 wt% of the active material ([0025]-[0045] & [0054]). Fukuoka further teaches a negative electrode including 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% (with a specific embodiment using 10 wt%) of a binder such as polyimide along with the negative electrode active material ([0043] & [0054]). Accordingly, a high capacity and improved cycle performance can be obtained as taught by Fukuoka ([0019]). Furthermore, the inclusion of polyimide in the negative electrode increases bond strength between the negative electrode components and thus improves cycle performance ([0026]). Separately, Deng teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon suboxide-carbon composite, wherein the carbon comprises graphitic carbon in an amount of 30 wt% to 45 wt% based on the total weight of the active material ([0038]-[0039], [0046]-[0049], [0096]-[0097], [0100], [0115]-[0116] & [0166]) and wherein a negative active material loading ranges from 2.25 mg/cm2 to 3.29 mg/cm2 although a negative active material loading of greater than 2 mg/cm2 is broadly taught (Fig. 13; [0023] & [0104]) and a negative active material density of at least about 0.6 g/cc ([0104]) with exemplary embodiments using densities of 1.9 and 2.0 g/cc (Table 3B). In certain embodiments, the negative electrode further comprises an electrically conductive agent such as carbon nanofibers ([0100] & [0112]). Deng also teaches that significant improvements in the specific capacity and the cycling properties of the battery can be attained with the addition of halogenated carbonates such as fluoroethylene carbonate to the electrolyte ([0076]). Thus, the modification of the electrode composition and structure according to the teachings of Deng, combined with the use of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte, significant improvements in specific capacity and cycling properties of the battery can be attained as taught by Deng. Furthermore, Masarapu renders obvious the suitability of a copper foil having a thickness of 4 microns to 14 microns as a current collector for a negative electrode composition comprising a silicon-based composite, conductive particles and a binder. Therefore, since the lithium-ion battery of Lopez as modified by the teachings of Deng, Masarapu and Fukuoka renders obvious the presently claimed structure and composition of the battery, the properties listed in (2) in the rejection of claim 1 are expected to be inherently present within the modified battery of Lopez. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. It is noted that Applicant has not shown any particular structural or compositional difference between the presently claimed battery and the battery of Lopez as modified by the teachings of the above cited prior art.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-20 & 23-27 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached on (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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights