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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Amendments were filed 1/02/26. Claims 1-18 are pending, wherein claims 13-18 remain withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101820445B1 (cited in IDS filed 4/19/23) in view of Duan (EP 3886218 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, KR 101820445B1 teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0001]), comprising:
an anode current collector (paragraph [0012], negative electrode current collector);
a primer layer formed on a surface of the anode current collector (paragraph [0015], first coating layer having an effect similar to that of a primer coating because of its contact with the anode current collector and improving adhesive force between anode mixture layer and the current collector); and
an anode active material layer (paragraph [0021], silicon-based material is divided between the second coating layer and the third coating layer) comprising a first anode active material layer (paragraph [0021], second coating layer) and a second anode active material layer (paragraph [0021], third coating layer) sequentially disposed on the primer layer (first coating, second coating, third coating), each of the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer including a silicon-based active material (paragraph [0021-0022], silicon-based material as the anode active material).
KR101820445B1 teaches a content of the silicon-based active material in the third coating relative to a total amount of said third coating is in the range of between 5 wt% to 20 wt% (paragraph [0022]), and a content of the silicon-based active material in the second coating relative to a total amount of said second coating is in the range of between 0.1% to 1% (paragraph [0019]), but is quiet to a ratio of a content of the silicon-based active material in the second anode active material layer among a total weight of the anode active material layer relative to a content of the silicon-based active material in the first anode active material layer among the total weight of the anode active material layer is greater than 1.25 and less than 5.
However, KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of the silicon-based active material present in each of the second coating and the third coating layer is an optimal value set in accordance with experiments in consideration of stress due to expansion during charging and discharging, as an advantage of an increase of energy density and desired capacity improvement is offset by the negative effects of volume expansion (paragraph [0020, 0023]). Furthermore, KR 101820445 B1 teaches the content of silicon is relatively higher in the third coating layer than in the second coating layer (paragraph [0030]).
In view of the teachings of KR 101820445B1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the ratio of the content of the silicon-based active material of the third coating to the second coating layer among a total weight of the active material layer of KR 101820445B1, to be within the claimed range of greater than 1.25 and less than 5, as KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of silicon-based material in each of the layers is optimized through routine experimentation (paragraph [0023]), and is a result-effective variable, where an increase of the silicon-based material would increase energy density and desired capacity (paragraph [0023]), but would similarly increase volume expansion (paragraph [0023]) which has a negative effect (paragraph [0020]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
KR 101820445B1 teaches the first anode active material and the second anode active material layer (second and third coatings) each include at least one binder (paragraph [0029], SBR/CMC), but is quiet to the binder selected from the group consisting of polyacrylic acid, polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylamide, polyvinyl acetate and a copolymer thereof.
Duan teaches a negative electrode plate including a current collector, a first active material layer including first silicon-based material particles and a second active material layer including silicon-based material particles, where a weight percentage of silicon based on a weight of the first active material layer is less than a weight percentage of the silicon element based on a weight of the second active material layer (abstract). Duan teaches the first and second active material layer include a binder (paragraph [0029]), which may include at least one of a polyvinylidene fluoride, a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, a polyamide, a polyacrylonitrile, a polyacrylic ester, a polyacrylic acid, a sodium polyacrylate, a sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, a polyvinylpyrrolidone, a polyvinyl ether, a poly methyl methacrylate, a polytetrafluoroethylene, a polyhexafluoropropylene, or styrene butadiene rubber (paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the SBR binder of the second and third coatings of KR 101820445B1 with a polyacrylic acid binder of Duan, as a polyacrylic acid binders is a functional equivalent to styrene butadiene rubber binder in the silicon-based active material layers of Duan (paragraph [0029]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination is quiet to wherein the ratio of the content of the silicon-based active material in the second anode active material layer among the total weight of the anode active material layer relative to the content of the silicon-based active material in the first anode active material layer among the total weight of the anode active material layer is 2 or more, and less than 5.
However, as discussed above, KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of the silicon-based active material present in each of the second coating and the third coating layer is an optimal value set in accordance with experiments in consideration of stress due to expansion during charging and discharging, as an advantage of an increase of energy density and desired capacity improvement is offset by the negative effects of volume expansion (paragraph [0020, 0023]).
In view of the teachings of KR 101820445B1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the ratio of the content of the silicon-based active material of the third coating to the second coating layer among a total weight of the active material layer of KR 101820445B1, to be within the claimed range of 2 or more and less than 5, as KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of silicon-based material in each of the layers is optimized through routine experimentation (paragraph [0023]), and is a result-effective variable, where an increase of the silicon-based material would increase energy density and desired capacity (paragraph [0023]), but would similarly increase volume expansion (paragraph [0023]) which has a negative effect (paragraph [0020]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 3, KR 101820445B1 teaches wherein the primer layer comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber (paragraph [0018], binder of the first coating layer is not limited, examples include SBR (styrene butadiene rubber)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches wherein the silicon-based active material includes at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si), a silicon alloy, a silicon oxide, a silicon-carbon (Si-C) composite and a silicon alloy-based carbon composite (KR 101820445B1, paragraph [0034-0035], silicon, silicon alloy, SiC, silicon oxide, etc).
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination is quiet to wherein a content of the silicon-based active material based on a total weight of the anode active material layer is in a range from 1 wt% to 20 wt% (claim 8) or in a range from 4 wt% to 15 wt% (claim 9).
However, as discussed above, KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of the silicon-based active material present in each of the second coating and the third coating layer is an optimal value set in accordance with experiments in consideration of stress due to expansion during charging and discharging, as an advantage of an increase of energy density and desired capacity improvement is offset by the negative effects of volume expansion (paragraph [0020, 0023]).
As the amount of silicon per each layer is optimized, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the total amount of silicon-based active material based on a total weight of the anode active material layer, to be within the claimed range of 4 wt% to 15 wt%, as KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of silicon-based material in each of the layers is optimized through routine experimentation (paragraph [0023]), and is a result-effective variable, where an increase of the silicon-based material would increase energy density and desired capacity (paragraph [0023]), but would similarly increase volume expansion (paragraph [0023]) which has a negative effect (paragraph [0020]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches wherein each of the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer further includes a carbon-based active material (KR 101820445B1, paragraph [0022],[0024],[0026], second coating has relatively high content of carbon-based material).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches wherein a content of the carbon-based active material in a total weight of the first anode active material layer is greater than a content of the carbon-based active material in a total weight of the second anode active material layer (KR 101820445B1, paragraph [0026], the second coating has a relatively high content ratio of carbon, whereas the third coating has a relatively low content ratio of carbon, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches a lithium secondary battery (KR 101820445B1, paragraph [0001], secondary battery), comprising: the anode for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see above, KR 101820445 B1, paragraph [0001], negative electrode); and a cathode facing the anode (KR 101820445 B1, further including a positive electrode).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101820445B1 as modified by Duan as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Wang (EP 2212949 B1, previously cited).
Regarding claims 4-5, the combination of KR 101820445B1 as modified by Duan teaches a primer layer, but is quiet to wherein an average loading weight of the primer layer is in a range from (claim 4) 0.1% to 20% or (claim 5) 0.5% to 10% of a total electrode loading weight.
However, KR 101820445B1 teaches the average thickness of the primer layer may be relatively thin (paragraph [0028]).
Wang teaches primers for electrodes of electrochemical cells (paragraph [0001]) function as adhesion layers, and that the invention is to provide good adhesion and electrical contact (paragraph [0003]). Wang teaches that primer layers are preferably thin, to reduce overall battery weight (paragraph [0013]), and should be stable and not interfere with the structural integrity of the electrodes (paragraph [0013]).
As KR 101820445B1 teaches of a thin primer layer, and that Wang suggests that thin primer layers are for reducing overall weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the average loading weight of the primer layer to be within the claimed range, as both KR 101820445B1 and Wang teach the desirability for a low thickness (and thus a low weight), while requiring stability and without interference with structural integrity (Wang, paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KR 101820445B1 as modified by Duan fails to teach that the primer layer does not include a conductive material.
However, Wang teaches that the use of conductive filler is optional, as Wang describes that conductive filler is used in some cases to increase electrically conductive properties (paragraph [0047]). Note that Wang describes that amount of filler to be at 10-90% if present (paragraph [0047]), further suggesting that the fillers are not required. Wang teaches that determining suitable compositions and configurations of the primers can be carried out without undue experimentation (paragraph [0044]), including selecting the primer layers based on its electrically conductive properties and ability to adhere (paragraph [0044]) and that Wang teaches experiments to determine the influence of optional components, such as fillers, on the adhesion (paragraph [0045]).
In view of the teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the primer layer of the combination so as to not include a conductive filler, as Wang teaches that conductive fillers are not necessary (paragraph [0047]) and that the primers can be selected based on its conductive properties and ability to adhere (paragraph [0044]), where experiments have been performed to test the effect fillers have on adhesion (paragraph [0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on p.10 of the Remarks, that the claims require that S2/S1 is greater than 1.25 and less than 5. Applicant notes that W1 + W2 is the total weight of the anode active material layer, and that the claims have been amended to clarify that ((S2)/(W1+W2)) / ((S1)/(W1+W2)) = S2/S1.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose or suggest every element of the claimed invention. Applicant argues that KR 445 does not disclose any specific physical quantity for calculating the “total weight of the anode active material layer” as KR 445 merely discloses the content of silicon-based active material in the active material of each anode active material layer and the thickness ratio between the anode active material layers, and has absolutely no interest in the content ratio between the silicon-based active materials in the respective anode active material layers.
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, KR 445 recognizes that the content of silicon is relatively higher in the third coating layer than in the second coating layer (paragraph [0030]) and that the content of the silicon-based active material present in each of the second coating and the third coating layer is an optimal value set in accordance with experiments in consideration of stress due to expansion during charging and discharging, as an advantage of an increase of energy density and desired capacity improvement is offset by the negative effects of volume expansion (paragraph [0020, 0023]).
In view of the teachings of KR 101820445B1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the ratio of the content of the silicon-based active material of the third coating to the second coating layer among a total weight of the active material layer of KR 101820445B1, to be within the claimed range of greater than 1.25 and less than 5, as KR 101820445B1 teaches that the content of silicon-based material in each of the layers is optimized through routine experimentation (paragraph [0023]), and is a result-effective variable, where an increase of the silicon-based material would increase energy density and desired capacity (paragraph [0023]), but would similarly increase volume expansion (paragraph [0023]) which has a negative effect (paragraph [0020]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Applicant additionally argues that the examples of KR 445 further do not disclose the content of silicon based on the weight of each layer, but rather to a content relative to the entire active material in each layer, and do not correspond to W1 or W2. Applicant argues that in order to calculate the total weight, physical quantities such as density are required in addition to composition, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to arrive at the claimed ratio.
The examiner disagrees. Note that the claims do not require calculating W1 + W2, only requiring a ratio of a content of the silicon-based active material in the second anode active material relative to a content of the silicon-based active material in the first anode active material, where it is noted by applicant that W1 + W2 cancels out and that the ratio is S2/S1.
As noted above, KR 445 suggests that the content of the silicon-based active material present in each of the second coating and the third coating layer is an optimal value set in accordance with experiments in consideration of stress due to expansion during charging and discharging, as an advantage of an increase of energy density and desired capacity improvement is offset by the negative effects of volume expansion (paragraph [0020, 0023]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Applicant next argues that KR 445 discloses PVA as a type of binder included in the first coating layer corresponding to the primer layer, but discloses that the binders in the second and third coating layer contain SBR and/or CMC. Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to substitute the binders of KR 445.
The examiner disagrees. Duan teaches the claimed binders as well as the binders of KR 445 can be used similarly for anode active materials including silicon-based materials.
Applicant recognizes the teachings of Duan on p.14-15 of the Remarks, where Duan discloses both SBR and CMC binders (binders used in KR 445) as well as PAA and PAN (used in the present application) without distinction. Applicant argues that if the disclosures were combined, a POSITA would thus preferably use CMC or SBR which are disclosed in KR 445 as the binder component.
The examiner disagrees. As applicant has noted, Duan teaches that SBR, CMC, as well as PAA, and PAN can be used without distinction. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered all the binders as obvious substitutions. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). MPEP 2123.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). See MPEP 2141.03(I).
Applicant additionally argues that Wang merely discloses a thinner thickness, and not a loading amount of the primer layer based on the entire electrode.
As noted in the rejection, Wang suggests a thin primer layer to reduce overall battery weight, and that it would have been obvious to optimize average loading weight of the primer layer to be within the claimed range as both KR 445 and Wang desire a low thickness and low weight, while requiring stability and without interference with structural integrity.
Applicant further argues that Wang teaches that conductivity of the primer layer is improved with the use of conductive fillers, and that all the examples of Wang include carbon black or the like. Applicant thus argues that nowhere does Wang disclose a primer layer that does not include a conductive material.
The examiner disagrees. Wang appears to suggest that the conductive material is optional (thereby suggesting they are not required). Note that Wang describes that conductive filler is used in some cases to increase electrically conductive properties (paragraph [0047]). Note that Wang describes that amount of filler to be at 10-90% if present (paragraph [0047]), further suggesting that the fillers are not required. Wang teaches that determining suitable compositions and configurations of the primers can be carried out without undue experimentation (paragraph [0044]), including selecting the primer layers based on its electrically conductive properties and ability to adhere (paragraph [0044]) and that Wang teaches experiments to determine the influence of optional components, such as fillers, on the adhesion (paragraph [0045]).
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component). See MPEP 2123 (I).
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 JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights