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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments have been entered. Amendments do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 12/29/2025, see rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20220029150-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Shin’ in view of (US-10263252-B2) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’
Regarding Claim 1,
Shin teaches a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Shin, “The present invention relates to a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”, abstract), comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode mixture layer supported on the negative electrode current collector (Shin, " A copper current collector was coated with the negative electrode slurry,", see [0071]), wherein the negative electrode mixture layer includes a silicon material, a carbon material capable of electrochemically absorbing and releasing lithium ions (Shin, " a carbon-based material, such as graphite or activated carbon, or a material, such as silicon oxide (SiOx), is being used as a negative electrode active material constituting a negative electrode", see [0004]), and electrically conductive fibers (Shin, "The line-type conductive agent, as the first conductive agent, may be carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or carbon nanofibers,", see [0031]), the silicon material has a lithium-ion conductive phase, and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium-ion conductive phase.
Shin does not teach when the negative electrode mixture layer is divided into two layers, a first region and a second region, having the same thickness, the first region is nearer to the negative electrode current collector than the second region is, the silicon material is contained more in the second region than in the first region and the electrically conductive particles are contained more in the second region than the first region.
Wang teaches when the negative electrode mixture material (Wang, “A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a silicon material as a negative electrode active material”, Abstract ) is divided into two layers, a first region (Wang, second region, 12b, Fig. 1) and a second region (Wang, first region, 12a, Fig. 1) having the same thickness , the first region and a second region, having the same thickness, the first region is nearer to the negative electrode current collector than the second region is, the silicon material is contained more in the second region than the first (see annotated figure below) and the electrically conductive particles are contained more in the second region than the first region (Wang, “The ratio (mixing ratio) of graphite to SiOx in the first region 12 a is preferably 99:1 to 60:40 by weight ratio”, see Col 6, ln 40)(Wang, “The ratio (mixing ratio) of graphite to SiOx in the second region 12 a is preferably 99:1 to 90:10 and more preferably 98:2 to 93:7 by weight ratio.”, see Col 6, ln 60)(The examiner notes that the ranges overlap in a way that would allow for one region to have more graphite than another)
PNG
media_image1.png
300
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang teaches that variation in the amount of silicon per region improves lithium-ion conductivity (Wang, “the density of the first region containing a larger amount of the silicon material decreases as a result of charging and discharging, many pores are formed between active materials in the first region, which makes it easy for an electrolyte solution to pass through the first region and thus improves lithium-ion conductivity. When the lithium-ion conductivity of the first region containing a large amount of the silicon material improves, high capacity and good discharge rate characteristics are obtained.”, see Col 3, Ln 7) the first region and the second region both contain carbon materials capable of electrochemically absorbing and release lithium ions ( Wang, “The ratio (mixing ratio) of graphite to SiOx in the first region 12 a is preferably 99:1 to 60:40 by weight ratio… The second region 12 b may contain only graphite as the negative electrode active material”, see Col 4 Ln 54 ).
Shin and Wang are analogous as they are both of the same field of non-aqueous batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode as taught in Shin with the silicon bilayer as taught in Wang in order to improve the ionic conductivity.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-ion conductive phase includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a SiO2 phase, a silicate phase, and a carbon phase, and the silicate phase contains at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal and a Group 2 element (Shin, "performance by including a silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2) composite containing magnesium (Mg)", see [0002])
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the silicon material in the second region is 1 mass% or more and 30 mass% or less (Shin, “The negative electrode active material further includes graphite and may be a mixture of the silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2) composite containing Mg and the graphite. In this case, a weight ratio of the silicon oxide composite containing Mg:the graphite may be in a range of 1:99 to 50:50, for example, 3:95 to 20:80”, see [0028])(Shin, “wherein an amount of the first conductive agent is in a range of 0.5 wt % to 1.7 wt % based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer”, see [0026]) (The examiner notes that considering the conductive agent is 1.7 weight percent, 98.3 wt % of the anode is active material up to the highest is 20% of which is silicon material, therefore it is 19.6 wt % of the second region).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive fibers include carbon fibers (Shin, “The line-type conductive agent, as the first conductive agent, may be carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or carbon nanofibers”, see [0031])
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the electrically conductive fibers in the second region is 0.001 mass% or more and 1 mass% or less (Shin, “The line-type conductive agent, as the first conductive agent, may be included in an amount of 0.5 wt % to 1.7 wt %, for example, 0.5 wt % to 1.5 wt % based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material”, see [0032])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5 wt% to 1.7 wt% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.001 mass% or more and 1 mass%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon material includes graphite (Shin, “The negative electrode active material further includes graphite and may be a mixture of the silicon oxide (SiOx, 0<x<2)”, see [0028]) .
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7, wherein a BET specific surface area of the graphite is 3.0 m2/g or more and 4.5 m2/g or less (Shin, “as the flaky graphite-based conductive agent…the BET specific surface area (m2/g) of the second conductive agent may have a value of 100 or less, for example, 30 to 100”, see [0039]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 100 or less broadly overlaps the claimed range of is 3.0 m2/g or more and 4.5 m2/g or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Shin teaches wherein a content of the carbon material in the first region is 85 mass% or more and 99 mass% or less (Wang, ” by weight with respect to the total weight of the negative electrode active material. The ratio (mixing ratio) of graphite to SiOx in the second region 12 a is preferably 99:1 to 90:10 and more preferably 98:2 to 93:7 by weight ratio.”, Col 6, ln 37)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 99 wt. % to around 90 wt. % broadly overlaps the claimed range of 85 mass% or more and 99 mass% or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Shin teaches the negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the second region includes an acrylic resin in an amount of 1 mass% or less (Shin, “Specific examples of the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (PVDF-co-HFP), polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylonitrile” see [0045]) (Shin, “The binder may be included in an amount of 1 wt % to 30 wt % based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material layer.”, see [0045])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 wt % to 30 wt % broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 mass% or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Shin teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the negative electrode is the negative electrode of claim 1 (Shin, “Specifically, the lithium secondary battery according to the present invention includes a negative electrode, a positive electrode disposed to face the negative electrode, a separator disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the negative electrode is the above-described negative electrode according to the present invention”, see [0055]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20220029150-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Shin’ in view of (US-10263252-B2 ) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’ , in further view of (US-20170133662-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Cui’
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Shin does not teach an average fiber diameter D of the electrically conductive fibers is 1 nm or more and 15 nm or less.
Cui teaches an average fiber diameter D of the electrically conductive fibers is 1 nm or more and 15 nm or less (Cui, “carbon fibers (e.g., carbon nanofibers) or polymeric fibers (e.g., polymeric nanofibers) having lateral dimensions (e.g., diameters), or an average lateral dimension (e.g., an average diameter), in the nanometer (nm) range, such as in the range of about 10 nm to about 1000 nm,”, see [0075])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10 nm to about 1000 nm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 nm or more and 15 nm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Cui teaches that carbon nanotubes are generally strong and are stable in redox environments of lithium batteries (Cui, “It is also noted that carbon materials including carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, and mesoporous carbon have appealingly high surface area with excellent mechanical strength. Moreover, carbon materials are generally stable under the redox environment within Li batteries”, see [0092])
Modified Shin and Cui are analogous as they both relate to the field of lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon material taught in modified Shin with the carbon material taught in Cui in order to provide a high surface area, good mechanical strength and a more stable environment.
16. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20220029150-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Shin’ in view of (US-10263252-B2 ) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’ , in further view of (US-20170225955-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kato’
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Shin does not teach wherein a particle internal porosity of the graphite is 10 % or more.
Kato teaches wherein a particle internal porosity of the graphite is 10 % or more (Kato, “In addition, porosity of the carbon member was also determined before and after activation treatment and shown in Table 2,…63.8%”, see [0093], see Table. 2 )
Kato teaches that porous graphite allows for high output, high discharge rate and high capacity (Kato, “In addition, due to the high crystallinity and electrical conductivity thereof, the resulting porous graphite also allows the obtaining of high output, high charge/discharge rate and high durability. In addition, due to the large bulk density, the resulting battery is capable of demonstrating high capacity. Sheet-like porous graphite can be used particularly preferably in applications such as the gas diffusion layer of a fuel cell, the current collector and/or negative electrode active material of a lithium-ion battery,”, see [0105])
Modified Shin and Kato are analogous as they both are of the same field of materials for the construction of battery electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite as taught in modified Shin to the porous graphite as taught in Kato in order to allow for high output, high discharge rate, and high capacity.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 6 , The applicant argues:
“However, Wang is silent as to including conductive fibers in both the material (col. 4, 1. 44)…Notably, although conductive fibers are mentioned in Shin, they are not mention in Wang , making the Office’s proposed combination and modification of Shin problematic. One of ordinary skill in the art would not accept such combination/modification with any reasonable expectation of success.”
21. However, this is not convincing. Wang teaches a wide range of conductive ratios for the layers of the electrode, which overlap in a way which would allow for the second region to contain more material than the second (Wang, “The ratio (mixing ratio) of graphite to SiOx in the first region 12 a is preferably 99:1 to 60:40 by weight ratio”, see Col 6, ln 40)(Wang, “The ratio (mixing ratio) of graphite to SiOx in the second region 12 a is preferably 99:1 to 90:10 and more preferably 98:2 to 93:7 by weight ratio.”, see see Col 6, ln 60). Carbon nanotubes are taught in Shin and to one of ordinary skill in the art they are a common conductive material (Shin, “The line-type conductive agent, as the first conductive agent, may be carbon nanotubes (CNTs) or carbon nanofibers”, see [0031]). Shin additionally describes the benefits of carbon nanotubes and similar ‘linear carbon materials’ (Shin, “In a case in which the line-type conductive agent is included in an amount of less than 0.5 wt %, since an electric path may be easily broken while the silicon oxide composite in the electrode undergoes repeated expansion/contraction during charge and discharge of lithium, the amount of the line-type conductive agent may not be enough to prevent this,” see [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have substituted carbon nanotubes for the graphite as taught in Wang in order to gain the benefits of linear carbon materials as taught in Shin.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached on (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights