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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US-20210143425-A1 relying on the PCT filing date of 08/01/2018) in view of Amiruddin et al. (US-20120105007-A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 3, the primary cited art of An does not teach prelithiating the negative electrode and therefore does not teach the limitations of:
A prelithiated negative electrode comprising:
wherein the negative electrode active material layer is prelithiated,
and wherein a content of lithium intercalated to the prelithiated negative electrode active material layer is 3% to 5% based on a lithium content intercalated when the negative electrode is charged to 100%,
To solve the same problem of providing a graphite base negative electrode (see [0143]), Amiruddin teaches electrochemical prelithiation of a negative electrode), see [0071], with all examples being graphite based ,see [0143]. Amiruddin teaches that prelithiation of the negative electrode results in dramatic decrease in the fading of specific capacity of the positive electrode active material upon cycling, see [0041].
Additionally, Amiruddin teaches prelithiation at an amount is suitably within the range of 3%-50% of the capacity of the negative electrode active material which encompasses the claimed range, see [0072]. Amiruddin further teaches this range retains the effectiveness of the supplemental lithium during cycling, see [0072].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have prelithiated the negative electrode of An by the method of Amiruddin to reduce specific capacity fade while cycling.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have prelithiated at an amount of 3%-50% because Amiruddin teaches this range is suitable toward maintaining the effectiveness of the supplemental lithium during cycling. Encompassing ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to select the overlapping range of the prelithiation amount taught by Amiruddin with the claimed amount, because Amiruddin teaches these are suitable prelithiation amounts to achieve the desired results of stabilizing capacity while cycling.
As rendered obvious above, An in view of Amiruddin teaches the limitations of:
A prelithiated negative electrode comprising:
wherein the negative electrode active material layer is prelithiated,
and wherein a content of lithium intercalated to the prelithiated negative electrode active material layer is 3% to 5% based on a lithium content intercalated when the negative electrode is charged to 100%,
An further teaches the following limitations:
a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer present on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (all example indicate applying a mixture including negative electrode active material to a surface of a current collector to form the negative electrode, see [0079]-[0080]),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises high-capacity artificial graphite having no carbon coating (a synthetically produced graphite based negative electrode active material that is characterized as having high discharge capacity, see Abstract),
wherein the high-capacity artificial graphite comprises secondary particles (the graphite material comprises secondary particles, see Abstract);
having a shape defined by a process comprising the steps of heat treating a carbon precursor to obtain primary particles and mixing the primary particles with a pitch binder and carrying out heat treatment to obtain the secondary particles,
and an average particle diameter (D50) of the high-capacity artificial graphite ranges from 18 µm or more (Example 1 of An teaches a secondary particle diameter, D50, of 19.5 µm which is within the claimed range)
(per Claim 3) wherein the high-capacity artificial graphite has an average particle diameter (D50) of 18 µm to 22 µm (Example 1 of An teaches a secondary particle diameter, D50, of 19.5 µm which is within the claimed range).
Example 1 of An teaches:
wherein the process comprising the steps of heat treating the carbon precursor to obtain primary particles (performing a heat treatment on needle coke to obtain primary particles, see [0067]-[0068])
and mixing the primary particles with the pitch binder and carrying out heat treatment to obtain the secondary particles excludes forming the carbon coating on the secondary particles (the obtained primary particles are mixed with pitch then graphitized by heat treatment, see [0068]).
Regarding Claim 2, Examples 1 of An has a discharge capacity of 356 Mah/g which is below the claimed range. However, in light of the modification of An in view of Amiruddin to prelithiate the negative electrode, Amiruddin teaches the initial capacity is increased with inclusion of supplemental lithium particularly in smaller loadings of lithium, see [0159] and Fig. 15. As shown in Fig. 15 of Amiruddin, this effect is significantly more than 4 mAh/g with an inclusion of 5% supplemental lithium . Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the modification of An in view of Amiruddin teaches:
wherein the high-capacity artificial graphite has a capacity of 360 mAh/g or more.
Regarding Claim 4, the prelithiation steps of Amiruddin disclose electrochemical contact between a lithium foil and the negative electrode (see [0071]), thereby, teaching:
wherein the prelithiation is carried out by using a lithium ion-supplying metal sheet through direct electric contact.
Regarding Claim 12, Example 1 of An teaches:
wherein the content of the lithium intercalated to the prelithiated negative electrode active material layer is 3% to 4.5% based on the lithium content intercalated when the negative electrode is charged to 100% (per claim 12).
As render obvious above, Amiruddin teaches prelithiation at an amount is suitably within the range of 3%-50% of the capacity of the negative electrode active material which encompasses the claimed range, see [0072]. Amiruddin further teaches this range retains the effectiveness of the supplemental lithium during cycling, see [0072].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have prelithiated at an amount of 3%-50% because Amiruddin teaches this range is suitable toward maintaining the effectiveness of the supplemental lithium during cycling. Encompassing ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to select the overlapping range of the prelithiation amount taught by Amiruddin with the claimed amount, because Amiruddin teaches these are suitable prelithiation amounts to achieve the desired results of stabilizing capacity while cycling.
Regarding Claim 14, Example 1 of An teaches:
wherein the carbon precursor is heat treated at a temperature in a range of 1,200°C to 1,800°C to obtain the primary particles (performing a heat treatment at a temperature of 1200 °C, which is within the claimed range, on needle coke to obtain primary particles, see [0067]-[0068])
Example 1 of An teaches the obtained primary particles are mixed with pitch then graphitized by heat treatment at a temperature of 3000 °C, which lies outside of the clime range, see [0068]. Therefore, An’s Example 1 does not teach the following limitation:
and the heat treatment of the mixture of the primary particles and the pitch binder is carried out at a temperature in a range of 2,200°C to 2,800°C to obtain the secondary particles (the obtained primary particles are mixed with pitch then graphitized by heat treatment of , see [0068]).
However, An teaches the suitable temperature range for graphitizing the secondary particles of the negative electrode active material is 2800 to 3200 °C which overlaps the high end point of the claimed range.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the temperature of 2800 °C in the embodiment of Example 1, because An teaches this is a suitable temperature for graphitization of the secondary particles of the negative electrode active material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the response that An does not implicitly or inherently disclose excluding forming a carbon coating on the secondary particles. This argument has been fully considered and found unpersuasive. There is no step taught by An’s Example 1 that includes a carbon coating of the secondary particles, therefore, one of ordinary skill would readily acknowledge that following the process taught by An results in no carbon coating of the secondary particles. Additionally, the arguments appear to merely indicate the An does not explicitly teach that the there is no carbon coating of the secondary particles. There is no argument directed to the product by process limitation added to amended Claim 1 resulting in a structurally different product than that taught by An.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the response that Amiruddin does not teach the “prelithiated negative electrode active material layer is 3% to 5% based on a lithium content intercalated when the negative electrode is charged to 100%.” Applicant further argues that Amiruddin’s disclosure of 3% to 50% or greater of the capacity of the negative electrode active material can be loaded with supplemental lithium is not the same as prelithiation intercalation. This argument is found unpersuasive because the teachings of Amiruddin indicates providing supplemental lithium within the negative electrode active material prior to assemblage of the battery (i.e., prelithiation intercalation) at a range of 3-50% of the capacity of the negative electrode active material (i.e., when the negative electrode is charged to 100%), see Amiruddin-[0071]-[0072]
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response that the evidence of Table 1 indicates the prelithiation range of 3-5% constitutes a showing of unexpected results. This argument is found unpersuasive because independent Claim 1 is not commensurate in scope with the experimental evidence provide in Table 1. Additionally, only one example is provided for a prelithiation amount of 4.5% and the comparative examples are for prelithiation of 0%, 2%, 8%, and 20% not showing a criticality of 3-5%.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721