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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Min (KR 20150113661 A) and further in view of Lau (US 20200373562 A1) and Seo (US 20190003042 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Min teaches:
a negative electrode [0006, 0011],
the negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector (electrode current collector, [0006]) and
a protective layer (graphene layer, [0006]),
and a negative electrode active material layer (para. 0011 and para. 0014)
wherein the protective layer is disposed on both surfaces (para. 0007, [on at least one surface of the electrode plate]) (Examiner notes that “on at least one surface” includes coating both surfaces of the electrode plate.) of the negative electrode current collector [para. 0006] and consists of graphene [para. 0007].
Min does not teach:
wherein the graphene has a ratio of D peak and G peak of 0.01 to 0.6 in a Raman spectrum
a graphene multilayer
wherein the multilayer graphene has a ratio of 2D peak and G peak of 0.2 to less than 1.1 in a Raman spectrum.
Lau, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches
an envelope material (para. 0009) comprised of graphene layers (para. 0010)
wherein the graphene has a ratio of D peak and G peak of 0.01 to 0.6 in a Raman spectrum (para. 0009, [turbostratic carbon having …. Having a ratio of ID/IG of 0-1.1.]),
wherein the layer has a thickness of 20 to 30 nm (para. 0062, [the turbostratic carbon-based material platelets may be on average ≤100 nm]),
wherein the layer includes multilayer graphene (para.0011, [the turbostratic carbon may be in the form of platelets having one or more than one layers of graphene]),
and wherein the multilayer graphene has a ratio of 2D peak and G peak of 0.2 to less than 1.1 in a Raman spectrum (para. 0009, [a ratio of I2D/IG ranges from 0.4 to 2]).
Regarding the multi-layer graphene limitation of claim 1, Lau teaches graphene platelets, (para. 0010 [the turbostratic carbon may be in the form of platelets having one or more than one layers of graphene]). Lau further teaches in para. 0054 that “the envelope may comprise the low - defect turbostratic carbon in the form of platelets comprising from one to about 10 sheets of graphene”, thus further reading on multilayer graphene of claim 1.
Regarding the thickness of the multilayer graphene, Lau teaches that a platelet (multiple layers of graphene) can have an average thickness of ≤100 nm (para. 0062, [a low thickness of the turbostratic carbon-based material platelets may be on average ≤100 nm]), thus reading on the thickness limitation of the graphene multilayer of claim 1.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed multilayer graphene range in order to arrive at superior performance of the electrochemical cell (para. 0039, [Specifically, a low - defect low thickness turbostratic graphene and methods therefore, when incorporated as an element of a structure used in an electrochemical cell, provides superior performance of said electrochemical cell compared with other electrochemical cells using other carbon materials]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped Min’s graphene protective layer for Lau’s graphene material, in order to incorporate a material that enables lithium ion electrochemical cell cycle life stability, energy density, and rate performance, as taught by Lau (para. 0008).
Examiner notes the preamble states “for a lithium-sulfur battery” which is intended use for the negative electrode and not given patentable weight.
Modified Min teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a lithium metal thin film (para. 0014).
Modified Min does not teach wherein the graphene has an average grain size of greater than 100 µm2 .
Seo, in the same field of endeavor, graphene systems, teaches wherein the graphene has an average grain size of greater than 100 µm2 (Seo, para. 0114, [an average graphene grain size of 30 – 200 µm).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to synthesized modified Min’s graphene layer to have an average graphene grain size of 30 – 200 µm, as taught by Seo, in order to produce a continuous, smooth, and large-area graphene film with good homogeneity to cover the surface of the substrate, as taught by Seo, (Seo, para. 0114, [A continuous, smooth, and large-area graphene film with good homogeneity was observed to cover the entire surface of the … foil]).
Regarding claim 3, The negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein the multilayer graphene has 2 to 100 layers (Lau, para. 0010, [more than one layer of graphene]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min teaches that the protective layer is made of graphene [0006].
According to pg. 11 of the instant specification, graphene “has excellent chemical and thermal stability as well as high electron conductivity and is impermeable to lithium polysulfide”. Since Modified Min has a protective layer of graphene on the current collector, it is therefore capable of this function.
Regarding claim 8, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses the protective layer is formed by a chemical vapor deposition [0007].
Regarding claim 9, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses the negative electrode current collector comprises at least one selected from the group of nickel, copper, titanium, vanadium, manganese, iron, cobalt, zinc, silver, aluminum, tin, bismuth, and antimony [0015].
Regarding claim 10, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses negative electrode current collector is in the form of a sheet [0008].
Regarding claim 11, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses the negative electrode further comprises a negative electrode active material layer on the protective layer [0010].
Regarding claim 12, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises lithium metal or lithium alloy [0014].
Regarding claim 14, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material; the negative electrode according to claim 1; and an electrolyte [0004].
Regarding claim 15, modified Min discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and Min further discloses the use of list of positive electrode active materials includes lithium sulfides may be used [0032] but not explicitly in an embodiment with the disclosed negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use lithium sulfide as the positive electrode active material, because it would amount to nothing more than an know positive active material in a known environment, to accomplish a known task.
Other Pertinent References
US 20220209226 A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks that Min does not teach that the graphene layer is disposed on both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner disagrees and states that Min teaches that the graphene layer can be applied on at least one side, which does include both sides. See claim 1 above.
Applicant states that Min teaches that the graphene layer may be coated to a thickness of 1 to 10 nm, which does not overlap thickness range of 20 to 30 nm as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner agrees that Min does not teach the thickness range of amended claim 1. However, modified Min, based on the teaching of Lau (para. 0062), teaches that the thickness of the multilayer graphene/turbostratic carbon may be less than or equal to 100 nm.
Applicant states that the composition of platelets is different from the protective layer.
Examiner states that the rejection of claim 1 above is based on the modification of Min with Lau and Seo. The modification is based on replacing Min’s protective layer with Lau’s protective layer, which includes multilayer graphene/turbostratic carbon-based material platelets (see claim 1 above). The multilayer graphene/turbostratic carbon of Lau is composed of “turbostratic carbon … in the form of platelets having one or more than one layers of graphene” (Lau, para. 0010). Thus, the platelets can be composed of one layer or may be composed of more than one layer. Therefore, para. 0062 of Lau teaches that the turbostratic carbon-based material platelets (composed of more than one layer of graphene) may be on average less than or equal to 100 nm, which includes the range from 20 nm to 30 nm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights