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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls out a dispersion parameter tied to the diffusion coefficient of the Relational Expression 1. The dispersion parameter is a desired property but is not a defining characteristic of the invention. The specification clearly defines that the formation (i.e., electrode, current collector, and active material layer) and structure of pores determine the invention (specification, para. 0005-0010). Furthermore, it is unclear how one skilled in the art could use the z-fit function to determine the dispersion parameter.
Claim 1, therefore, will be examined without consideration for the dispersion parameter element that is recited in claim 1.
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, 5, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119203 A1), with evidence by Cabanel et al. (CABANEL et al., "Determination of the Diffusion coefficient of an inserted species by impedance spectroscopy: Application to the H/Hx Nb2 O5 system", Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 1993, pp. 93-97, Vol. 23.) and further in view of Shen (US 20220093925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a negative electrode (para. 0020) for a secondary battery (abstract), comprising: a current collector (abstract); and a negative electrode active material layer (abstract) formed on the current collector (abstract, [wherein the anode layer includes an anode current collector]) (abstract, [a second anode active material layer disposed between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer]) and containing a negative electrode active material, wherein the negative electrode satisfies the following Relational Expression:
[Relational Expression] 1.1 x 10-3 ≤ D < 1.9-10-3 where D is a coefficient of diffusion of lithium ions in the negative electrode (para. 0064, [the second anode active material layer may have a lithium ion diffusivity … for example, about … 5x10-11 cm² /sec or greater [less than 5x10–3 cm2 / sec]).
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 selected a high coefficient of diffusion of lithium ions for the second anode layer, within the ranges taught by Kim, in order to induce deposition of lithium between the second anode active material layer and the anode current collector, as taught by Kim (0190).
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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Modified Kim does not teach where D is a coefficient of diffusion of lithium ions in the negative electrode and is derived from the following expression: D=
PNG
media_image1.png
17
36
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-y where σ is a thickness (cm) of the negative electrode active material layer, td is a diffusion time (s), and ɣ is a dispersion parameter and satisfies 0.8 <y< 0.95, wherein the dispersion parameter (ɣ) refers to a value for correcting a difference between the experimental environment and the ideal environment of the analysis model (td).
Kim, however, teaches the coefficient of diffusion of the Relational Expression (0064) and teaches a thickness similar to the thickness taught in the instant specification (0067, [50-150 microns]). 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 selected a high coefficient of diffusion of lithium ions for the second anode layer, within the ranges taught by Kim, in order to induce deposition of lithium between the second anode active material layer and the anode current collector, as taught by Kim (0190).
It is known to correct for experimental factors, based on a correction between ideal and experimental environments, as evidenced by Cabanel (Conclusion, para. 3).
Kim does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material comprises artificial graphite.
Shen, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrode active materials, teaches a negative electrode active material comprised of artificial graphite and natural graphite (Shen, para. 0017, [the negative electrode plate includes both artificial graphite and natural graphite]).
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 added artificial graphite and natural graphite to modified Kim’s negative active material, as taught by Shen (Shen, para. 0029), in order for the negative electrode plate to have a higher energy density, while improving the ion transmission performance of the negative electrode plate, as taught by Shen (para. 0046).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material includes at least one carbon-based active material (para. 0079).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material layer has an average pore size (D50) of 550 to 800 nm (para. 0078).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a negative electrode density of 1.4 to 1.8 g/cm3. Kim discloses the active material layer of the claimed invention, which inherently reads on the density of said active material layer (abstract) (para. 0064). Examiner notes that density is an intrinsic property.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim discloses a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1; a positive electrode (para. 0117 cathode layer); a separator (para. 0016); and an electrolyte solution (para. 0117).
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 3, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119203 A1) with evidence by Cabanel et al. (CABANEL et al., "Determination of the Diffusion coefficient of an inserted species by impedance spectroscopy: Application to the H/Hx Nb2 O5 system", Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 1993, pp. 93-97, Vol. 23.) and further in view of Shen (US 20220093925 A1) and Liu (US 20120077080 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Kim does not teach the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein:
- the negative electrode has a diffusion time td of the lithium ions of 0.020 seconds or longer.
- the negative electrode has a diffusion time td of the lithium ions of 0.025 to 0.041 seconds.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes, teaches that the “diffusion time is … dictated by the thickness(es) of the electrode (para. 0100).
Kim teaches that the thickness of the electrode material is 1-100 microns (0076).
The instant specification teaches that the thickness of the electrode material is (50-150 microns) (para. 0067).
Therefore, since both Kim and the instant specification teach overlapping thicknesses of the negative electrode, 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 achieved diffusion times of either 0.020 seconds or longer, or 0.025 to 0.041 seconds, due to the relationship between thickness and diffusion time, as taught by Liu (0100).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim discloses a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 3; a positive electrode (para. 0117 cathode layer); a separator (para. 0016); and an electrolyte solution (para. 0117).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119203 A1) with evidence by Cabanel et al. (CABANEL et al., "Determination of the Diffusion coefficient of an inserted species by impedance spectroscopy: Application to the H/Hx Nb2 O5 system", Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 1993, pp. 93-97, Vol. 23.) and further in view of Shen (US 20220093925 A1) and Grey et al. (US 12074300 B2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. Modified Kim does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a total pore volume of 0.20 to 0.23 cm3/g.
Grey, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes, teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a total pore volume of 0.20 to 0.23 cm3/g (column 9, lines 39-43). Grey teaches that the pore volume may be at least 0.2 cm3/g.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of Kim to obtain the desired pore volume of 0.20 cm3/g or greater as taught by Grey, to allow rapid transport of lithium ions and electrons to the active materials, as taught by Grey (column 9, lines 60-65).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119203 A1) with evidence by Cabanel et al. (CABANEL et al., "Determination of the Diffusion coefficient of an inserted species by impedance spectroscopy: Application to the H/Hx Nb2 O5 system", Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 1993, pp. 93-97, Vol. 23.) and further in view of Shen (US 20220093925 A1) and Zhamu (US 20170098856 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1.
Modified Kim does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a loading amount of 6 to 15 g/cm2.
Zhamu, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a loading amount of 6 to 15 g/cm2 (para. 0021, [the anode active material has a typical material mass loading no less than 20 mg/cm2 (0.02 g/cm2) in the anode material).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of Kim to obtain an active material layer with the desired loading amount of 6 to 15 g/cm2 as taught by Zhamu (para. 0021), to produce a lithium battery having a high active material mass loading to improve cell volumetric capacities and energy densities (para. 0013- 0014).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210119203 A1), with evidence by Cabanel et al. (CABANEL et al., "Determination of the Diffusion coefficient of an inserted species by impedance spectroscopy: Application to the H/Hx Nb2 O5 system", Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 1993, pp. 93-97, Vol. 23.), and further in view of Shen (US 20220093925 A1) and Chae (US 20220302427 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the negative electrode of claim 1.
Modified Kim does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a porosity of 20 to 30%.
Chae, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a porosity of 20 to 30% (0093, 28%). Chae also teaches that the porosity can be achieved by using a roll press device (0102).
Kim also uses a roll press device to prepare/coat the negative active material layer (0119, [pressing may be carried out using roll pressing …. The second anode active material layer may also be prepared in the same manner]).
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 used Chae’s roll press technique to prepare/coat Kim’s active material layer to a porosity of 28%, in order to satisfy a target thickness of the negative electrode, as taught by Chae (0112).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered.
Regarding the diffusion time constant and the diffusion parameter,
Para. 0060 describes how the diffusion time constant may be measured by Nyquist plotting and fitting data calculated using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy.
Para. 0062 describes how the dispersion parameter may be obtained by fitting of the data. The specification does not teach that the dispersion parameter is measured by Nyquist plotting and fitting data calculated using electrochemical impedance spectroscopy.
Moreover, it is still unclear how one skilled in the art could use the z-fit function to determine the dispersion parameter.
Regarding the 112b rejection:
Applicant’s remarks contradict the disclosure. The citation to a software does not resolve the clarity issue of the claims or the disclosure.
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 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 on (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
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights