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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12 are rejected.
Claim 4 is canceled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2019156462 A1, “Kim”, US 20200335794 A1 used herein for citation purposes) in view of Shin et al. (WO 2019151813 A1, “Shin”, US 20210074995 A1 used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a negative electrode, comprising: a current collector (see [0042] “negative electrode” & see [0043] “current collector”); and a negative electrode active material layer on at least one surface of the current collector (see [0044] “a negative electrode active material layer, which is disposed on the current collector and includes a negative electrode active material”), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises: 1) a negative electrode active material comprising Mg-containing silicon oxide particles and a graphene coating layer (see [0048] “negative electrode active material” & “Si-Y alloys (where Y is an element” & “alkaline earth metal” reads on Mg; see [0039] “the graphene sheets may be formed in such a shape where the graphene sheets open outward without forming a pore structure”). Kim does not explicitly disclose a core nor surrounding a surface of the core.
Shin teaches a core and shell structure (see abstract “silicon oxide composite” & “Mg”; “a silicon oxide composite comprising i) Si, ii) a silicon oxide represented by SiOx (0 <x ≦ 2), and iii) a magnesium silicate containing Si and Mg” & see [0043] “neg. electrode active material includes a silicon oxide composite corresponding to a core part and a carbon coating layer corresponding to a shell part covering part or all of the outside of the core part”; see [0045] “carbon coating layer corresponding to a shell portion includes” & “graphene”. Shin teaches in [0030] “the negative electrode active material according to the present disclosure is provided with a homogeneous carbon coating layer on the outside thereof, and thus shows a reduced water content, thereby providing significantly improved life characteristics”.
Kim and Shin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode (see Shin [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a silicon oxide composite with Mg as a core part and “a carbon coating layer corresponding to a shell portion” includes graphene as suggested by Shin (see abstract & [0043] & [0045]) into the negative electrode of Kim because doing so improves life characteristics, as suggested by Kim (see [0030]).
Regarding the limitation 2) a conductive material comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), Kim discloses (see [0005] “carbon nanotube”). Kim discloses and 3) a binder (see [0044] “negative electrode active material layer may include a binder”). Regarding the limitation wherein an amount of the graphene coating layer is 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material, Kim does not explicitly disclose.
Shin teaches in [0051] “content of the carbon coating layer in the negative electrode active material according to the present disclosure may be 2.5 to 10 parts by weight, 2.5-7 parts by weight, or 3-5 parts by weight, based on 100 parts be weight of the silicon oxide composite” & “when the content of the carbon coating layer satisfies the above-defined range, it is possible to cover the silicon oxide composite containing SiOx suitably to improve electrical conductivity”.
Shin teaches a range of 3 to 5 parts by weight, which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 wt% to 10 wt%. 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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 3 to 5 parts by weight, as suggested by Shin (see [0051]) into the negative electrode of Kim because doing so improves electrical conductivity, as suggested by Shin (See [0051]).
Regarding the limitation wherein a graphene present in the graphene coating layer has a D/G band intensity ratio of 0.8 to 1.5, Kim discloses a value that lies within the claimed range (see Table 1 describes Example 1 includes a ratio of 1.42).
Regarding the limitations and wherein the D/G band intensity ratio of the graphene is an average value of a ratio of a maximum peak intensity of D band at 1360±50 cm-1 based on a maximum peak intensity of G band at 1580±50 cm-1, as determined by Raman spectroscopy of the graphene, Kim discloses (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the D/G band intensity ratio of graphene present in the graphene coating layer ranges from 0.8 to 1.4 (see Table 1 describes Example 2 “1.27” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the Mg-containing silicon oxide particles comprise 4 wt% to 15 wt% of Mg.
Shin teaches in [0087] “negative electrode active material had a Mg concentration of 9 wt%” which lies within the claimed range.
Shin teaches a range of 9 wt%, which lies within the claimed range of 4 wt% to 15 wt%. 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)'.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the conductive material further comprises carbon black (see [0005] “carbon black).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a carbonaceous active material (see [0048] “negative electrode active material may be a graphite-based active material particle”).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the carbonaceous active material comprises at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphitizable carbon fibers, graphitizable mesocarbon microbeads (see [0048] “negative electrode active material may be a graphite-based active material particle” & “artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphitized carbon fiber, graphitized mesocarbon microbeads”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see title “secondary battery”).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 & wherein the negative electrode active material consists of Mg-containing silicon oxide particles and the graphene coating layer (see [0048] “negative electrode active material” & “Si-Y alloys (where Y is an element” & “alkaline earth metal” reads on Mg; see [0039] “the graphene sheets may be formed in such a shape where the graphene sheets open outward without forming a pore structure”). Kim does not explicitly disclose a core nor surrounding a surface of the core.
Shin teaches a core and shell structure (see abstract “silicon oxide composite” & “Mg”; “a silicon oxide composite comprising i) Si, ii) a silicon oxide represented by SiOx (0 <x ≦ 2), and iii) a magnesium silicate containing Si and Mg” & see [0043] “neg. electrode active material includes a silicon oxide composite corresponding to a core part and a carbon coating layer corresponding to a shell part covering part or all of the outside of the core part”; see [0045] “carbon coating layer corresponding to a shell portion includes” & “graphene”. Shin teaches in [0030] “the negative electrode active material according to the present disclosure is provided with a homogeneous carbon coating layer on the outside thereof, and thus shows a reduced water content, thereby providing significantly improved life characteristics”.
Kim and Shin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode (see Shin [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a silicon oxide composite with Mg as a core part and “a carbon coating layer corresponding to a shell portion” includes graphene as suggested by Shin (see abstract & [0043] & [0045]) into the negative electrode of Kim because doing so improves life characteristics, as suggested by Kim (see [0030]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2019156462 A1, “Kim”, US 20200335794 A1 used herein for citation purposes) in view of Shin et al. (WO 2019151813 A1, “Shin”, US 20210074995 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha et al. (US 20200144597 A1, “Ha”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an amount of the single-walled carbon nanotube is 0.01 wt% to 0.06 wt% based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer.
Ha teaches SWCNTs & wt% (see [0051] “from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% CNTs, based on the total weight of the composite particle”).
Kim and Ha are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes (see Ha title).
The amount of SWCNTs suggested by Ha is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2019156462 A1, “Kim”, US 20200335794 A1 used herein for citation purposes) in view of Shin et al. (WO 2019151813 A1, “Shin”, US 20210074995 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (WO 2020122602 A1, “Shin”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, btu does not explicitly disclose wherein an amount of the Mg-containing silicon oxide particles is 90 wt% to 99.5 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material.
Shin teaches in [96] “doping Mg into SiOx” & in [59] describes “negative electrode active material may be included in an amount of 80 to 99 wt%, more specifically 85 to 98 wt%, based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material layer. When included in the above-mentioned content range, excellent capacity characteristics may be exhibited”.
Kim and Shin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes (see [59]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 85 wt% to 98 wt%, as suggested by Shin (see [59]) into the negative electrode of Kim because doing so provides excellent capacity characteristics, as suggested by Shin (see [59]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2019156462 A1, “Kim”, US 20200335794 A1 used herein for citation purposes) in view of Shin et al. (WO 2019151813 A1, “Shin”, US 20210074995 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (WO 2020122602 A1, “Shin”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) and Ha et al. (US 20200144597 A1, “Ha”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses the negative electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of the graphene coating layer is 1 wt% to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material, an amount of the Mg-containing silicon oxide particles is 90 wt% to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material, and an amount of the single-walled carbon nanotubes is 0.01 wt% to 0.06 wt% based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material layer.
Shin teaches in [0051] “content of the carbon coating layer in the negative electrode active material according to the present disclosure may be 2.5 to 10 parts by weight, 2.5-7 parts by weight, or 3-5 parts by weight, based on 100 parts be weight of the silicon oxide composite” & “when the content of the carbon coating layer satisfies the above-defined range, it is possible to cover the silicon oxide composite containing SiOx suitably to improve electrical conductivity”.
Shin teaches a range of 3 to 5 parts by weight, which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 wt% to 10 wt%. 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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 3 to 5 parts by weight, as suggested by Shin (see [0051]) into the negative electrode of Kim because doing so improves electrical conductivity, as suggested by Shin (See [0051]).
Shin teaches in [96] “doping Mg into SiOx” & in [59] describes “negative electrode active material may be included in an amount of 80 to 99 wt%, more specifically 85 to 98 wt%, based on the total weight of the negative electrode active material layer. When included in the above-mentioned content range, excellent capacity characteristics may be exhibited”.
Kim and Shin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes (see [59]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate 85 wt% to 98 wt%, as suggested by Shin (see [59]) into the negative electrode of Kim because doing so provides excellent capacity characteristics, as suggested by Shin (see [59]).
Ha teaches SWCNTs & wt% (see [0051] “from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% CNTs, based on the total weight of the composite particle”).
Kim and Ha are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes (see Ha title).
The amount of SWCNTs suggested by Ha is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/15/2026
Prosecution Insights