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
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to further limit the SWCNTs to a certain BET surface area range
Claims 2, 6 amended to shorten phrasing regarding the SWCNTs
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Finlayson (US 20210047185 A1), which teaches the desired surface area range for SWCNTs used in a lithium secondary battery.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 6-9, the rejections under 35 USC 103 remain in place and unchanged, other than now being further in view of Finlayson. Regarding claims 4 and 6-9, applicant argues that neither previously applied prior art teaches the requisite surface area limitation. Since this is taught by Finlayson, the claims are still rejected. Additionally, applicant argues that Kim does not disclose its limitations specifically in regards to a lower layer region. Examiner does not find this argument convincing as this is taught by Ishikawa, and Kim is only being used to further modify the teachings of Ishikawa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 20220052314 A1) in view of Finlayson (US 20210047185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches the following elements:
A negative electrode, comprising: a current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the current collector, (“The negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that is one aspect of the present disclosure comprises: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode mixture layer formed on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode mixture layer has: a first layer formed on the negative electrode current collector, the first layer including a first carbon-based active material, a Si-based active material, and polyacrylic acid or a salt thereof; and a second layer formed on the first layer, the second layer including a second carbon-based active material” Ishikawa [0011])
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises an artificial graphite, (“For example, graphite, amorphous carbon, or the like is used as the first and the second carbon-based active materials. Among others, graphite is preferable. Examples of the graphite include: natural graphite, such as scale-like graphite; and artificial graphite,” Ishikawa [0032])
and a polymer binder, (“Examples of the second binder include CMC or a salt thereof, a styrene-butadiene copolymer (SBR), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and PEO.” Ishikawa [0039])
and having a lower layer region facing the current collector, and an upper layer region facing the lower layer region and extended to the surface of the negative electrode active material layer, (“The negative electrode mixture layer 31 has a first layer 32 formed on the negative electrode current collector 30 and a second layer 33 formed on the first layer 32. The first layer 32 is a layer (lower layer) including a first carbon-based active material, a Si-based active material, and polyacrylic acid or a salt thereof. The second layer 33 is a layer (upper layer) including a second carbon-based active material.” Ishikawa [0024])
single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) (“CNT may be not only single-layered CNT but also double-layered CNT and multi-layered CNT,” Ishikawa [0043]. While Ishikawa states that the CNT may be multi-walled, it is implied that it is also single walled and can consist only of single walled CNTs.)
and the upper layer region includes no SWCNTs. (“In the first layer 32, fibrous carbon may be included.” Ishikawa [0042] and “Examples of the fibrous carbon include a carbon nanotube (CNT)” Ishikawa [0042]. There is no mention of any fibrous carbon being used in the second layer, thus meeting the above limitation.)
a content of the SWCNTs is 0.003-0.07 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lower layer region, (“The content of the fibrous carbon is, for example, preferably 0.01% by mass to 5% by mass,” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01%-5% of SWCNTs by mass of the lower layer region overlaps the claimed range of 0.003-0.07% of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
the SWCNTs have an average diameter of 0.5-15 nm, (“The fibrous carbon has, for example, a diameter of 2 nm to 20 μm” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2nm-20µm for the diameter of the fibrous carbon (which is stated in Ishikawa [0043] as being capable of being nanotubes) overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-15nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Ishikawa is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
wherein a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area of the SWCNTs ranges 250-330 m2/g or 500-1,500 m2/g.
However, Finlayson teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Ishikawa. Specifically, Finlayson teaches high-surface area nanotubes used in a secondary battery:
wherein a Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area of the SWCNTs ranges 250-330 m2/g or 500-1,500 m2/g. (“Typically, the single and double walled nanotubes treated with shear, oxidation, or both that are described herein usually have a BET surface area of at least about 400 m.sup.2/g, or of at least about 500 m.sup.2/g, … up to about 3000 m.sup.2/g or higher, or up to about 2500 m.sup.2/g or higher, or up to about 2000 m.sup.2/g or higher, or up to about 1900 m.sup.2/g, or up to about 1800 m.sup.2/g, or up to about 1700 m.sup.2/g.” Finlayson [0044])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 400-3000 m2/g for the BET surface area of SWCNTs encompasses the claimed range of between 500-1500 m2/g for the same parameter . Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Finlayson is considered to be analogous to Ishikawa because they are both drawn to the use of SWCNTS as an additive in a lithium ion battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SWCNTs of Ishikawa to have a high surface area, as taught by Finlayson, in order to minimize tube surface oxidation (“Such novel carbon nanotubes can have little to no inner tube surface oxidation, or differing amounts and/or types of oxygen-containing species, e.g., oxidation, between the tubes' inner and outer surfaces or among the carbon nanotubes.” Finlayson [0049]) and to improve general battery properties (“These new nanotubes are useful in many applications, including cathode material, anode material, binder material, electrolyte material, separator film material, and or composites for energy storage devices for the improvement of mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties.” Finlayson [0049])
Regarding claims 2-10, no further modifications are required in addition to the previous rejections, and therefore, other than now depending further on Finlayson, the rejections remain in place and unchanged.
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein the content of the SWCNTs is 0.005-0.045 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lower layer region. (“The content of the fibrous carbon is, for example, preferably 0.01% by mass to 5% by mass,” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01%-5% of SWCNTs by mass of the lower layer region overlaps the claimed range of 0.005-0.045% of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein the SWCNTs have an average diameter of 1-10 nm. (“The fibrous carbon has, for example, a diameter of 2 nm to 20 μm” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2nm-20µm for the diameter of the fibrous carbon (which is stated in Ishikawa [0043] as being capable of being nanotubes) overlaps the claimed range of 1-10nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the lower layer region or the upper layer region further comprises a conductive material other than the SWCNTs. (“A conductive coating formed of a material having higher electrical conductivity than the Si-containing compound is preferably formed on the surfaces of the particles of the Si-containing compound.” Ishikawa [0035] And “The conductive coating is preferably a carbon coating. The carbon coating is formed in an amount of, for example, 0.5% by mass to 10% by mass based on the mass of the SiO.sub.x particles. Examples of a method for forming the carbon coating include a method of mixing coal tar or the like with Si-containing compound particles and subjecting the resultant mixture to a heat treatment, and a chemical vaper deposition method (CVD method) using a hydrocarbon gas or the like. In addition, the carbon coating may be formed by fixing carbon black, Ketjen black, or the like firmly to the surfaces of the Si-containing compound particles using a binder.” Ishikawa [0037])
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa teaches all of the following elements:
A lithium secondary battery comprising the negative electrode as defined in claim 1. (“ FIG. 1 is a perspective view showing a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as one exemplary embodiment. The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10 shown in FIG. 1” Ishikawa [0014]) and “The positive electrode active material contains a lithium-containing metal composite oxide as a main component.” Ishikawa [0020])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 20220052314 A1) in view of Finlayson (US 20210047185 A1) and further in view of Ohsawa (US 20190260030 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Ishikawa is silent on the following:
The negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the lower layer region or the upper layer region further comprises a spheronized natural graphite.
However, Ohsawa teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Ishikawa. Specifically, Ohsawa teaches the use of spheronized natural graphite as a graphitic material used in a negative electrode:
The negative electrode according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the lower layer region or the upper layer region further comprises a spheronized natural graphite. (“The negative electrode active material includes at least a graphitic material 21 and a silicon oxide material 22.” Ohsawa [0045] and “Graphitic material: spheronized natural graphite” Ohsawa [0136]. If the graphitic material of Ohsawa, spheronized natural graphite, was used in place of the carbon-based material used in either layer of Ishikawa, then the above limitation would be met as this would be in addition to the carbon nanotubes used in the fibrous carbon of Ishikawa.)
Ishikawa and Ohsawa are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium-ion secondary batteries containing carbon based and silicon based compounds in their negative electrode active material layers. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative active material of Ishikawa to use the spheronized natural graphite of Ohsawa as both materials are used for the same purpose in the art, and it would only require a simple substitution to replace one with the other. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 20220052314 A1) in view of Finlayson (US 20210047185 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20200243848 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa teaches the following elements:
A method for manufacturing the negative electrode as defined in claim 1, comprising: (“The negative electrode 20 is produced by, for example, the following method” Ishikawa [0044])
preparing a slurry for a lower layer containing a first artificial graphite, a first binder polymer, the SWCNTs and a first dispersion medium, (“A first negative electrode mixture slurry for the first layer 32, the slurry including: the first carbon-based active material; the Si-based active material; the binder including PAA or the salt thereof; and the like, is prepared” Ishikawa [0044], “For example, graphite, amorphous carbon, or the like is used as the first and the second carbon-based active materials. Among others, graphite is preferable. Examples of the graphite include: natural graphite, such as scale-like graphite; and artificial graphite,” Ishikawa [0032], “In the first layer 32, fibrous carbon may be included.” Ishikawa [0042], and “Examples of the fibrous carbon include a carbon nanotube (CNT)” Ishikawa [0042])
and a slurry for an upper layer containing ana second artificial graphite, a second binder polymer and a second dispersion medium and including no (the SWCNTs); (“A second negative electrode mixture slurry for the second layer 33, the slurry including: the second carbon-based active material; the binder; and the like, is prepared.” Ishikawa [0044] and “], “For example, graphite, amorphous carbon, or the like is used as the first and the second carbon-based active materials. Among others, graphite is preferable. Examples of the graphite include: natural graphite, such as scale-like graphite; and artificial graphite,” Ishikawa [0032]. There is no mention of the fibrous carbon used in the first layer being used in the second layer.)
coating the slurry for a lower layer on one surface of a negative electrode current collector, (“The first negative electrode mixture slurry is applied on the negative electrode current collector 30,” Ishikawa [0044])
and coating the slurry for an upper layer on the slurry for a lower layer, (“Subsequently, the second negative electrode mixture slurry is applied on the first layer 32,” Ishikawa [0044])
wherein a content of the SWCNTs is 0.003-0.07 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total solid content of the slurry for a lower layer, (“The content of the fibrous carbon is, for example, preferably 0.01% by mass to 5% by mass,” Ishikawa [0043]
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01%-5% of SWCNTs by mass of the lower layer region overlaps the claimed range of 0.003-0.07% of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and the SWCNTs have an average diameter of 0.5-15 nm. (“The fibrous carbon has, for example, a diameter of 2 nm to 20 μm” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2nm-20µm for the diameter of the fibrous carbon (which is stated in Ishikawa [0043] as being capable of being nanotubes) overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-15nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Ishikawa does not explicitly teach the following:
at the same time or with a predetermined time interval;
and drying the coated slurry for a lower layer and the slurry for an upper layer at the same time to form an active material layer,
However, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not found in Ishikawa. Specifically, Kim teaches a method of depositing two layers where the coating of both layers is done simultaneously, as is the drying:
at the same time or with a predetermined time interval; (“The formed first active material layer and second active material layer were pressed through roll pressing at the same time to obtain a negative electrode” Kim [0102])
and drying the coated slurry for a lower layer and the slurry for an upper layer at the same time to form an active material layer, (“Otherwise, after the first negative electrode slurry and the second negative electrode slurry may be coated and dried at the same time” Kim [0083])
Kim and Ishikawa are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of negative electrodes containing two active material layers, one of which contains CNTs and one of which does not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating method of Ishikawa to perform both the coating and drying steps at the same time as this method allows for both the first and second layers to be formed at the same time, reducing the time needed and therefore improving the efficiency of the method without sacrificing the desirable properties of the material.
Claims 7 and 8 are met by Ishikawa without needing any further motivation, and claim 9 is met by using the above method of Kim without needing any further modification, and therefore not needing any further motivation as well.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ishikawa meets all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Ishikawa teaches all of the following elements of claim 7:
The method for manufacturing the negative electrode according to claim 6, wherein the content of the SWCNTs is 0.005-0.045 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the lower layer region. (“The content of the fibrous carbon is, for example, preferably 0.01% by mass to 5% by mass,” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01%-5% of SWCNTs by mass of the lower layer region overlaps the claimed range of 0.005-0.045% of the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ishikawa meets all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Ishikawa teaches all of the following elements of claim 8:
The method for manufacturing the negative electrode according to claim 6, wherein the SWCNTs have the average diameter of 1- 10 nm. (“The fibrous carbon has, for example, a diameter of 2 nm to 20 μm” Ishikawa [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 2nm-20µm for the diameter of the fibrous carbon (which is stated in Ishikawa [0043] as being capable of being nanotubes) overlaps the claimed range of 1-10nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ishikawa meets all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. The method of Kim used to meet the limitations of claim 6 also meets those of claim 9, without needing any further modification:
The method for manufacturing the negative electrode according to claim 6, wherein in the coating, the slurry for a lower layer, and the slurry for an upper layer are coated, with a time interval of 0.6 seconds or less. (“the two types of slurry may be coated and dried at the same time by using a double slot die, or the like, thereby forming the first/second negative electrode active materials at once.” Kim [0076]. By forming the two layers at the same time, the time interval between the two would be 0 seconds and would therefore meet the above limitation.)
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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 SMITH can be reached at (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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752