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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the term “about” as claimed should be interpreted based on an acceptable range of deviation for the particular value as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the measurement and error associated with the measurement. Applicant further submits according to the specification, the meaning of "about" is determined by a person of ordinary skill and the Office's broad interpretation of any relative values proceeded by 'about' to be within 30% of the recited value is thus not a reasonable interpretation, as it does not take into account the acceptable range of deviation for the particular value (which includes any errors associated with the measurement of the particular value) as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the instant specifications [00124] states that "about" may mean within one or more standard deviations, or within ± 30%, 20%, 10%, 5% of the stated value; the instant specifications identifies multiple contradictory ranges for "about". Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “about” is the ± 30% as stated in the specifications. Interpreting “about” as recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art by considering the measurement in question and the error associated with measurement of the particular quantity is not concrete. Applicant submits that a POSITA may determine the term “about” to be within ± 30%, 20%, 10%, 5% based on method of measurement and its error model. However, the claims do not provide the method of measurement or error model such that a POSITA would be able to determine the tolerance associated with the claimed values. Therefore, as before, the broadest reasonable interpretation is to use the broadest provided range of ± 30%.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach the orientation ratio=I(110)/I(002) as claimed in claim 1. Applicant submits that the orientation ratio is influenced by multiple interdependent variables including: composition and weight % of the negative active material, composition and weight % of the conductive material, magnetic field strength, slurry viscosity, and exposure time to the magnetic field.
Applicant submits the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. Applicant further argues that it is unclear that the orientation ratio would necessarily flow from the teachings of the prior art and cites fig. 4 of Lee and fig. 4 of Ka which provides an orientation ratio. Applicant further submits that the prior art which provides a teaching of 2 to 9 seconds of magnetic field exposure does not overlap with the exposure time of 3.0 m/min to 5.0 m/min. Applicant argues that there is no teaching or motivation in the prior art to select the negative electrode structure and composition, and that
However, first as clarified by the applicant, Lee provides that the carbon-based negative active material can be modified to include a silicon negative active material, the negative active material may be about 90 wt% to 98.99 wt%, that the conductive material may be carbon nanotubes, the conductive material may be included at about 1 wt% to about 5 wt %, a magnetic field range of 1,000 Gauss to 10,000 Gauss, including 3,000 Gauss in the Examples, which overlaps the range in the specification, Lee can be modified with Ka to have a slurry viscosity of about 1000 cps to about 4000 cps, and an exposure time of 2 to 9 seconds. Because of these several overlapping composition and procedural processes, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting negative electrode would have an orientation ratio as claimed. While applicant argues that the orientation does not necessarily flow from the teachings of Lee and Ka, the prior art provides teachings substantially identical to the instant specification and supported with rational to show inherency.
Applicant submits that the orientation would not necessarily flow from the teachings of the prior art, citing the fig. 4 of Lee and fig. 4 of Ka show peak intensities outside the claimed range. However, the combination of Lee and Ka do not correspond with the fig. 4 of Lee and fig. 4 of Ka; fig. 4 of Lee directly refers to the XRD results of example 1-1 of Lee, and fig. 4 of Ka directly refers to example embodiment 1 of Ka. However, the combination of the rejection combines the full disclosure of Lee with the full disclosure of Ka, as opposed to the direct implementations of example 1-1 of Lee and example embodiment 1 of Ka. Therefore, the teachings of Lee and Ka which provides the chemical structure of the material corresponds with the orientation ratio as claimed.
Applicant argues that Lee does not provide the length traversed over the 2 to 9 seconds of exposure time, and therefore it is unclear whether the exposure time falls within the exposure time of 3.0 m/min to 5.0 m/min as provided in the instant specification. However, firstly, instant claim 1 is a product claim as opposed to a product claim, and the rejection combines references to address the claim as such. Secondly, the general conditions of the magnetic field are provided, including the magnetic field strength and the approximate exposure time, which match the general parameters of the magnetic field treatment disclosed in the instant specifications. The examiner cannot test or experiment the exact correlation between the 2 to 9 seconds of exposure time to the instant specification magnetic field speed of 3 m/min to 5 m/min as the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant (see MPEP 2112 V.).
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art to specifically select the feature of the prior art, Lee and Ka do provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features. Namely, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to selection of material of Lee and Ka in order to provide high capacity (see e.g., Lee; [0148]), achieve a desired degree of divergence with the viscosity of the material (see e.g., Ka; [0032]), to provide improved cycle-life characteristics (see e.g., Lee; [0147] and Ka; [0111]-[0112]), improved internal resistance characteristics (see e.g., Lee; [0145] and Ka; [0105]-[0107]), improved rate capabilities (see e.g., Ka; [0109]-[0110]), improved lithium precipitation (see e.g., Ka; [0113]-[0114]), improved expansion rate capability (see e.g., Ka; [0115]-[0117), improved thermal diffusivity and penetration (see e.g., Ka; [0118]-[0122]), and improved thermal stability (see e.g., Ka; [0124]).
Applicant submits that the embodiment of claim 1 provides unexpected results. However, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. Applicant refers to table 3 in that examples 1-5, which have an orientation ratio of 50 to 100 and the single-walled carbon nanotube conductive material, provide a capacity retention of 84-84.5%, as opposed to the comparative examples 1-5 which provide a capacity retention of 76.2-81.7%. However, examples 1-5 provide an orientation ratio of 63.89912 to 91.45203, which is a narrower range than the claimed orientation ratio of 50 to 100. Moreover, the capacity retention of comparative example 5 reaches 81.7%, which is close to the capacity retention of examples 1-5 of around 84%. Furthermore, table 2 of the instant specification shows the specific resistance, active mass resistance, and interfacial resistance of examples 1-5 compared to comparative examples 1-5. For the specific resistance, comparative examples 1-5 provide a range of 0.27-0.29 and examples 1-5 provide an overlapping range of 0.28-0.30. For active mass resistance, comparative examples 1-5 provide a range of 0.0383-0.0441 and examples 1-5 provide an overlapping range of 0.0367-0.04310. For interfacial resistance, comparative examples 1-5 provide a range of 0.0231-0.081 and examples 1-5 provide an overlapping range of 0.0279-0.0301. Therefore, the instant invention regarding the specific resistance, active mass resistance, and interfacial resistance do not provide unexpected results.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-12 for failing to particularly point out the measurement conditions of XRD have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-12 regarding the XRD measurement conditions has been withdrawn.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-15 use the term “about”. According to the instant specification, “about” may be 30%, 20%, 10%, or 5% of the stated value. Therefore, it is unclear exactly which value corresponds with the term “about”. “About” makes the following subjects indefinite: the orientation ratio value in claim 1, the orientation ratio value in claim 2, the carbon nanotube average length in claim 5, the carbon nanotubes average diameter in claim 6, the orientation ratio value in claim 10, the magnetic field strength in claim 11, and the viscosity in claim 12.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of any relative values preceded by “about” is interpreted to be within 30% of the recited value.
Claims 3, 4, 7-9 are rejected for at least depending on claim 1.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1), and in further view of Ka (US-20180123120-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (see e.g., [0002]), comprising: a current collector (see e.g., [0005]); and a negative active material layer on the current collector (see e.g., [0005]), the negative active material layer comprising a negative active material and a conductive material (see e.g., [0005], regarding carbon negative active material and conductive agent), wherein the negative active material is oriented at a set angle to the current collector (see e.g., [0048], fig. 1, regarding active material oriented at a specific angle with respect to the current collector), the negative active material comprises a silicon-based active material (see e.g., [0023], regarding Si negative active material [0061]-[0062]), the conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes (see e.g., [0063]-[0064], regarding fiber-shaped conductive agent which may be carbon nanotubes).
The instant specification states that the orientation ratio of equation 1 may be achieved via a magnetic field of about 2000 Gauss to 5000 Gauss wherein the speed for passing through the area where the magnetic field is generated may be about 3.0 m/min to about 5.0 m/min. Similarly, Lee discloses that magnetic field may be 1000 Gauss to 10,000 Gauss (see e.g., [0052]) with a specific example provided of 3000 Gauss (see e.g., [0116]), and that the negative active material may be exposed to the field for about 2 to 9 seconds (see e.g., [0052]).
In example 1, Lee applies the 3000 Gauss magnetic field to negative active material that is primarily artificial graphite. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the magnetic field of 3000 Gauss to a negative active material that is a silicon-carbon composite instead of artificial graphite because Lee specifically teaches that the negative active material may be a carbon negative active material mixed with Si negative active material (see e.g., Lee; [0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select this material for the 3000 Gauss magnetic field treatment in order to obtain high capacity (see e.g., Lee; [0148]).
Lee teaches that the negative active material may be a carbon negative active material mixed with Si negative active material mixed in a weight ratio of 50:50 to 99:1 (see e.g., Lee; [0061]). Similarly, the instant specification submits that silicon material may be about 1 wt% to about 60 wt% of the total. In other words, the percentage of silicon material included in the negative active material composite disclosed by Lee closely overlaps with the composition of the instant specification.
The instant specification further submits that the amount of the negative active material may be about 90 wt% to 98.99 wt%. Similarly, Lee discloses that the negative active material layer may include about 90 wt% to about 98 wt% of the negative electrode active material (see e.g., Lee; [0077]).
Therefore, Lee teaches the composition and weight % of the negative active material disclosed by the instant specification.
Furthermore, the instant specification submits that the conductive material may be carbon nanotubes, single-walled, multi-walled, or a combination, and included in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt%. Similarly, Lee teaches that a conductive material may be selected from a group of materials including single-walled carbon nanotube and multi-walled nanotube (see e.g., Lee; [0063]-[0064]) and included at about 1 wt% to about 5 wt%.
KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select carbon nanotube from the list of possible conductive materials taught by Lee.
Therefore, Lee also teaches the composition and weight % of the conductive material disclosed by the instant specification.
Lee does not explicitly disclose a slurry viscosity of about 1000 cps to about 4000 cps at room temperature as disclosed in the instant specification. However, Ka teaches that a negative electrode active material may have a viscosity of about 2000 cps to about 4000 cps at room temperature (see e.g., Ka; [0033]). Ka is further combinable with Lee because Ka similarly teaches that the negative electrode may include carbon material with Si-based material in a mixed ratio of 50:50 to 99:1 (see e.g., Ka; [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the negative electrode material disclosed by Lee have the property of the viscosity being 2000 cps to 4000 cps at room temperature as disclosed by Ka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a desired degree of divergence (see e.g., Ka; [0032]).
Therefore, Ka combined with Lee teaches a slurry viscosity that overlaps with the instant specification.
In summary, Lee teaches a negative electrode active material having the same composition and weight % of the negative active material, composition and weight % of the conductive material, and magnetic field strength as the instant specification; it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the combination of silicon-carbon composite material with the carbon nanotube conductive material and applied a magnetic field of 3000 Gauss. Moreover, Ka may be combined with Lee to teach a viscosity that is the same as the instant specification.
Therefore, because modified Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, an overlapping magnetic field strength for further processing the negative active material, and a time of exposure that may overlap with the specified speed, it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of equation 1, specifically: the negative electrode has an orientation ratio represented by Equation 1 of about 50 to about 100: Equation 1 Orientation ratio=I(110)/I(002), and wherein, in Equation 1, (110) is a peak intensity at a (110) plane for an x-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) measured by utilizing a CuKa ray, and (002) is a peak intensity at a (002) plane for the XRD measured by utilizing the Cuka ray.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. As described above regarding claim 1, modified Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, and the similar magnetic field for further processing the negative active material and therefore it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of about 54 to about 95.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the conductive material is multi-walled carbon nanotubes or single-walled carbon nanotubes (see e.g., [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes have an average length of about 1 μm to about 10 μm (see e.g., [0063]-[0064], regarding fiber-shaped conductive agent having length of 1 μm to 200 μm which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein the fiber-shaped conductive agent may be carbon nanotube).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. As described above, Lee discloses the same composition of the negative electrode, and the similar magnetic field for further processing the negative active material and therefore it is the examiners position that the resulting structure would have an orientation ratio of wherein the peak intensity is a peak integral area value..
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising the negative electrode of claim 1 (see e.g., [0002]); a positive electrode; and an electrolyte (see e.g., [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses an electronic device comprising the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 8 (see e.g., [0086], regarding the battery applied to an electronic device such as a power tool, electric vehicle, vacuum cleaner).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses a method of forming the negative electrode of claim 1 (see e.g., [0051], regarding method of manufacture), the method comprising of forming: a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (see e.g., [0002]), comprising: a current collector (see e.g., [0005]); and a negative active material layer on the current collector (see e.g., [0005]), the negative active material layer comprising a negative active material and a conductive material (see e.g., [0005], regarding carbon negative active material and conductive agent), wherein the negative active material is oriented at a set angle to the current collector (see e.g., [0048], fig. 1, regarding active material oriented at a specific angle with respect to the current collector), the negative active material comprises a silicon-based active material (see e.g., [0023], regarding Si negative active material [0061]-[0062]), the conductive material comprises carbon nanotubes (see e.g., [0063]-[0064], regarding fiber-shaped conductive agent which may be carbon nanotubes).
The equation 1 orientation ratio=I(110)/I(002) is taught by modified Lee as described above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1. As in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is the examiner’s position that modified Lee also teaches wherein the X-ray diffraction (XRD) utilized to determine I(110) and I(002) is measured without a monochromator, over 28 = 200 to 800, with a scan speed of 0.044 to 0.0890/s and a step size of 0.013 to 0.0390/step. Claim 13 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee above regarding claim 1 teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1) and Ka (US-20180123120-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Azami (US-20180198159-A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the silicon-based active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite comprising crystalline carbon (see e.g., [0060], regarding crystalline carbon), silicon particles (see e.g., [0061]-[0062], regarding Si negative active material). Lee does not explicitly disclose the active material comprising an amorphous carbon. However, Azami discloses an active material may further comprise of amorphous carbon (see e.g., [0040]). Azami is equivalent analogous art and combinable because Azami similarly discloses the negative electrode active material may comprise of silicon and carbon such as SiO2 and graphite, and a carbon nanotube as the conductive agent (see e.g., Azami; [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Lee such that the silicon-based active material further comprises of an amorphous carbon disclosed by Azami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved cycle characteristics (see e.g., Azami; [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon nanotubes have an average diameter of about 1 nm to about 5 nm. However, Azami discloses carbon nanotubes with an average diameter 0.5 nm to 50 nm (see e.g., [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nm to 5nm. Azami is further combinable because Azami similarly discloses the length of the carbon nanotubes are 0.05 μm to 5 μm. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon nanotubes disclosed by Lee to have an average diameter of 0.5 nm to 50 nm disclosed by Azami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have improved cycle characteristics (see e.g., [0009]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 4. As above in claim 4, modified Lee with Azami provides that the carbon may include amorphous carbon. Lee also discloses that the carbon may include crystalline carbon (see e.g., Lee; [0060]). Lee further discloses that the carbon may be a mixture of artificial and natural graphite in a ratio of 5:95 to 95:5 (see e.g., Lee; [0060]). Lee also discloses wherein the negative active material may be a carbon negative active material mixed with Si negative active material mixed in a weight ratio of 50:50 to 99:1 (see e.g., Lee; [0061]). Therefore, modified Lee provides wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises silicon in an overlapping range with the claimed 3-60 wt% of silicon, 20-60 wt% amorphous carbon, and 20-60 wt% crystalline carbon based on 100 wt% of the silicon-carbon composite. That is, Azami provides the amorphous carbon, Lee provides the crystalline carbon, and the amorphous and crystalline carbon may correspond to the mix of artificial and natural graphite in a range of 5:95 to 95:5 as disclosed by Lee, and Lee further discloses the total mix of the carbon to silicon in a weight ratio of 50:50-99:1, which are overlapping ranges with the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected silicon in a range of 20-60 wt%, amorphous carbon as provided by Lee with Azami in a range of 20-60 wt%, and crystalline carbon in a range of 20-60 wt%, in order to achieve high capacity retention (see e.g., Lee; [0147]-[0148]).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'."
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US-20190334161-A1) and Ka (US-20180123120-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsukuda (US-20210184310-A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the negative active material layer is formed by passing a slurry comprising the negative active material and the conductive material through a magnetic field having a strength of about 2000 Gauss to about 5000 Gauss (see above regarding claim 1 which provides an example of 3000 Gauss that is combined with the silicon-carbon composite negative active material).
Lee discloses that the exposure time may be about 2 to 9 seconds (see e.g., Lee; [0052]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the speed is about 3.0 m/min to about 5.0 m/min. However, Tsukuda teaches that a conveyance speed may wherein a magnet field is applied may be 5 m to 200 m per minute (see e.g., Tsukuda; [0181]) which overlaps with the claimed range. Tsukuda is analogous art because Tsukuda teaches the conveyance and magnetic field applied to materials for a secondary battery. While Tsukuda teaches the conveyance speed applied to a separator film, a similar speed may be applied to Lee for the negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a conveyance speed of 5 m to 200 m per minute disclosed by Tsukuda to the negative electrode active material disclosed by Lee in order to provide the possibility of eliminating foreign objects from the material (see e.g., [0181]).
Moreover, Claim 11 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee above regarding claim 1 teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 11. As disclosed above regarding claim 1, modified Lee also teaches wherein the slurry comprising the negative active material and the conductive material has a viscosity of about 2000 cps to about 4000 cps at room temperature, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1000 cps to 4000 cps.
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches the negative electrode of claim 1.
wherein the negative active material layer is formed by coating a slurry having a viscosity of about 1000 cps to about 4000 cps at 25 °C (see above regarding claim 1) and passing the coated current collector through a magnetic field of about 2000 Gauss to about 5000 Gauss (see above regarding claim 1 which provides an example of 3000 Gauss that is combined with the silicon-carbon composite negative active material).
Lee discloses that the exposure time may be about 2 to 9 seconds (see e.g., Lee; [0052]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the speed is about 3.0 m/min to about 5.0 m/min. However, Tsukuda teaches that a conveyance speed may wherein a magnet field is applied may be 5 m to 200 m per minute (see e.g., Tsukuda; [0181]) which overlaps with the claimed range. Tsukuda is analogous art because Tsukuda teaches the conveyance and magnetic field applied to materials for a secondary battery. While Tsukuda teaches the conveyance speed applied to a separator film, a similar speed may be applied to Lee for the negative electrode active material. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a conveyance speed of 5 m to 200 m per minute disclosed by Tsukuda to the negative electrode active material disclosed by Lee in order to provide the possibility of eliminating foreign objects from the material (see e.g., [0181]).
Moreover, Claim 14 is a product-by-process claim, and modified Lee above regarding claim 1 teaches the structure of the negative electrode active material; product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I.).
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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights