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
In view of the cancellation of claim 15 the rejection under U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 under U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
The addition of claim 21 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues theoretical capacity is not the same as capacity per unit mass and the examiner agrees depending on the conditions including temperature, number of cycles etc. the capacity of a material may not be the same as theoretical capacity, however, for the purposes of claim 1, Zhao teaches the capacity may be the same for artificial and natural graphite and this is all that is required to meet the limitation of claim 1 where a ratio of the second capacity ratio to the first capacity ratio is greater than 1. Furthermore, while Kang does not teach a capacity per unit mass for each graphite, each material inherently has a capacity per unit mass value which may be equal to each other and up to the theoretical limit.
Applicant argues the examples of Kang do not include silicon as an active material, however the disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
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.
Claim 21 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). Claim 21 recites the limitations "capacity per unit mass of the active layer" where the first term appears to refer to the “capacity per unit mass of the first active layer." Furthermore, these terms are not present in claims 1 or 3 from which it depends. Claim 1 recites the capacity per unit mass of the first and second active material. For purposes of examination, based on paragraph 43 of the specification, the equations of claim 21 will be used to calculate the capacity per unit mass of the active material containing both graphite and silicon as claimed in claim 3 using the limitation of claim 1 where a ratio of the second capacity ratio to the first capacity ratio being greater than 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.
Claims 1-11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et. al. (US20210336244A1). Evidence provided by Zhao et. al. (Adv Mater. 2022, 34, 2106704).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet(¶[0093]), comprising:
a current collector (¶[0095]);
a first active layer (negative slurry 1) provided on a surface of at least one side of the current collector containing a first graphite as a natural graphite(¶[0095]); and
a second active layer (negative slurry 2) provided on a surface of a side of the first active layer away from the current collector containing a second graphite as an artificial graphite (¶[0095]), and
a ratio of capacity per unit mass of the first active material to specific surface area of the first active material is a first capacity ratio, and a ratio of capacity per unit mass of the second active material to specific surface area of the second active material is a second capacity ratio, a ratio of the second capacity ratio to the first capacity ratio being between 1.05 and 1.5. In this case, the capacity per mass of the graphite is inherently the same for both layers as taught by Zhao(abstract see both artificial and natural graphite have the same theoretical capacity) with a difference in surface area where the first graphite has a surface area in the range of 1.6 m2/g-4.0 m2/g and the second graphite has a surface area of 0.6 m2/g-2.2 m2/g leading to an overlapping range of the required ratio.
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.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 7, Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first and/or second active material may include a silicon based material(¶[0043]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11 Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claim 3 and Kang with evidence by Zhao further discloses the first graphite has the same capacity per gram as that of the second graphite, and the first graphite has a specific surface area different from that of the second graphite as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 18, Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claim 1, wherein the first active layer comprises a first conductive agent, and the second active layer comprises a second conductive agent; and the first active layer comprises a first adhesive(binder, PVDF), and the second active layer comprises a second adhesive(binder SBR)(¶[0092-[0093]).
Regarding claim 20, Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claim 1 and this sheet was used to form a battery (¶[0099]).
Claims 12-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et. al. (US20210336244A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Park (US20170133670A1). Evidence provided by Zhao et. al. (Adv Mater. 2022, 34, 2106704).
Regarding claims 12-15, Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claims 1 and 2, and that the negative active material layers may contain silicon(¶[0043]) but does not disclose the % silicon.
Park, related to negative electrodes, teaches graphite as a negative electrode active material and the addition of silicon, which has a higher theoretical capacity, is added to the graphite containing anode to increase volumetric and gravimetric energy density (¶[0043]). Park additionally teaches the mass of silicon within the active material may be set at 0% to 90% of the composite material (¶[0010]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize would provide wherein the first silicon material accounts for 5%-20% of the active material by mass.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the silicon of Park to the first and second graphite-based active material layer of Kang would have increased the volumetric and gravimetric energy density of each layer and the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added silicon in the range of 5-20% by mass to first and second layer of the electrode of Kang to increase volumetric and gravimetric energy density.
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.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claims 1 and 2 and the negative active material layers may contain silicon(¶[0043]) but does not disclose the surface area of the silicon.
Park, related to negative electrodes, teaches graphite as a negative electrode active material and the addition of silicon, which has a higher theoretical capacity, is added to the graphite containing anode to increase volumetric and gravimetric energy density (¶[0043]). Park additionally teaches the surface area of silicon within the active material may be set to less than about 5 m2/g (¶[0068]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the silicon with a surface area of less than about 5 m2/g of Park to the first and second graphite-based active material layer of Kang would have increased the volumetric and gravimetric energy density of each layer and the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the silicon of Park to first and second layer of the electrode of Kang to increase volumetric and gravimetric energy density.
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.
Regarding claim 21, Kang discloses a negative electrode sheet according to claim 3, but does not disclose the mass% of silicon of the first or second silicon material.
Park, related to negative electrodes, teaches graphite as a negative electrode active material and the addition of silicon, which has a higher theoretical capacity, is added to the graphite containing anode to increase volumetric and gravimetric energy density (¶[0043]). Park additionally teaches the mass of silicon within the active material may be set at greater than 0% to 90% of the composite material (¶[0010]). Park additionally teaches the surface area of silicon within the active material may be set to less than about 5 m2/g (¶[0068]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the silicon mass% of Park to the first and second graphite-based active material layer of Kang would have increased the volumetric and gravimetric energy density of each layer and the electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the silicon of Park to first and second layer of the electrode of Kang to increase volumetric and gravimetric energy density.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized the graphite of the first and second layer has a capacity per unit mass(c1 and c2) and they may be the same as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and the silicon material of Park has a capacity per unit mass and the same material is added to each layer making the capacity per unit gram of the first and second silicon(d1 and d2) the same value. Furthermore, the range of surface areas of graphite and silicon as taught by Kang and Park and the range of mass fractions taught by Park (X1 and X2) lead to an overlapping range in the calculation of a ratio of the second capacity ratio to the first capacity ratio being greater than 1.
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 27 April 2026
Prosecution Insights