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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Ketjenblack on page 11: line 15 of the instant specification, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There should be a colon after “including” on line 2 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Lines 8-9 of claim 1 recite the weight average molecular weight greater or equal to 150,000 and less than or equal to 450,000 for the binder containing a carboxymethyl cellulose salt. The claim and dependent claims never recite a unit. The specification does not note a unit. For compact prosecution, the examiner will move forward with the units of g/mol.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mass" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 2-3 of claim 8 recite the weight average molecular weight greater or equal to 200,000 and less than or equal to 400,000 for the binder containing a carboxymethyl cellulose salt. The claim never recite a unit. The specification does not note a unit. For compact prosecution, the examiner will move forward with the units of g/mol.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 2017/0077497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ogata et al. teaches a negative electrode for secondary batteries (see e.g. negative electrode for secondary battery in Para. 107), the negative electrode comprising a negative electrode mixture layer (see e.g. formed negative electrode active material film by slurry in Para. 120 of the negative active material in Para 106 and electrode active material 30 in Para. 86 and Fig. 2D.) including
a negative electrode active material containing a Si compound (see e.g. electrode active material 30 that includes silicon-composite 31 in Para. 87 that may be negative in Para. 106 and Fig. 2D. The negative active material may also include SiOx (where 0 < x < 2), a silicon oxide compound in Para. 121-123),
a conductive agent (see e.g. carbonaceous nanoscaffold 34 in Para. 87, inherently conductive otherwise identified as electrically conductive agent in Para. 119), and
a binder (see e.g. cross-linked water-insoluble polymer 33 in Para 87 that can be the same as the chemical cross-linked water-insoluble polymer in Para. 87 of which may be carboxymethyl cellulose sodium or ammonium salt in Para. 69, later identified in the claim as making up the binder),
the conductive agent containing a single-walled carbon nanotube (see e.. the carbonaceous nanoscaffold 34 may be carbon nanotube that is a single-walled carbon nanotube in Para. 89-90) having an outermost diameter of less than or equal to 5 nm (see e.g. the carbon nanotube may have an average tube diameter of 40 nm or less in Para. 90. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)), and
the binder containing a carboxymethyl cellulose salt having a weight average molecular weight of greater than or equal to 150,000 and less than or equal to 450,000 (see e.g. the chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer may have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of about 1,000 to 5,000,000 Da, such as 10,000-200,000 Da in Para. 70. This is approximate to the unit of g/mol. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 2, Ogata et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1, wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube has an outermost diameter of greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 3 nm (see e.g. the carbon nanotube may have an average tube diameter of 40 nm or less in Para. 90. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Ogata et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1, wherein a content of the single-walled carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 0.001 mass% and less than or equal to 0.1 mass% of the mass of the negative electrode active material (see e.g. an amount of the carbonaceous nanoscaffold 34 in the electrode active material 30, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material 30 may be 0.1 parts by weight to about 50 parts by weight in Para. 95. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 8, Ogata et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1, wherein the carboxymethyl cellulose salt has a weight average molecular weight of greater than or equal to 200,000 and less than or equal to 400,000 (see e.g. the chemically cross-linked water-insoluble polymer may have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) in a range of about 1,000 to 5,000,000 Da, such as 10,000-200,000 Da in Para. 70. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 11, Ogata et al. teaches secondary battery (see e.g. secondary batter in Para. 107) comprising a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode in Para. 107), a negative electrode (see e.g. negative electrode in Para. 107), and a non- aqueous electrolyte (see e.g. electrolyte in Para. 107 that may be a non-aqueous electrolyte in Para. 129),
the negative electrode being the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1 (see e.g. rejection of claim 1 above, and Para. 69-70, 86-87, 89-90, 106-107, 119-123 and Fig. 2D of Ogata et al.).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 2017/0077497 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0209240 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ogata et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 3,.
Ogata et a. teaches (see e.g. the carbonaceous nanoscaffold 34 of the electrode active material 30 may be carbon nanotube that is a single-walled carbon nanotube in Para. 87 and 89-90. The electrode active material may be for a negative electrode in Para. 106.)
Ogata et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the content of the single-walled carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 0.001 mass% and less than or equal to 0.05 mass% of the mass of the negative electrode active material.
However, Kim et al., teaches the single-walled carbon nanotubes are in an amount of 0.001 wt. % to 1 wt. % in the negative electrode active material layer in Para. 25 that in a silicon-based negative electrode active material in para. 27. Kim et al. teaches the benefits of effective improvement in lifetime characteristics of the negative electrode, a reduction in resistance, and an improvement in initial efficiency may be achieved in Para. 27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantity of single-walled carbon nanotubes of Ogata et al., in an amount of 0.001 wt. % to 1 wt. % in the negative electrode active material layer, as taught by Kim et al., of effective improvement in lifetime characteristics of the negative electrode, a reduction in resistance, and an improvement in initial efficiency may be achieved as noted in Kim et al. in Para. 27.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 5, Ogata in view of Kim et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 4, wherein the content of the single-walled carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 0.001mass% and less than or equal to 0.01 mass% of the mass of the negative electrode active material (see e.g. combined teachings in rejection of claim 4. Ogata et al. teaches the carbonaceous nanoscaffold 34 of the electrode active material 30, that may be for a negative electrode in Para. 106, may be a single-walled carbon nanotube in Para. 87 and 89-90. Kim et al., teaches the single-walled carbon nanotubes are in an amount of 0.001 wt. % to 1 wt. % in the negative electrode active material layer in Para. 25 that in a silicon-based negative electrode active material in para. 27. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. (US 2017/0077497 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita (US 2022/0376262 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ogata et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1.
Ogata et al. teaches carboxymethyl cellulose sodium or ammonium salt in Para. 69 may act as the cross-linked water-insoluble polymer 33 in Para. 69 and 87.
Ogata et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the carboxymethyl cellulose salt has a degree of etherification of greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 1.6.
However, Morita et al. teaches a binder in a mixture slurry in Para. 130 that may contain carbon nanotubes and also an active material. The active material may be for a negative electrode in Para. 131 and 158. The negative electrode active material may comprise a silicon-based material in Para. 136-138. The binder may include carboxymethyl cellulose in Para. 121. Para. 123 describes the carboxymethyl cellulose used as the binder resin preferably has a high degree of etherification such as 0.6 to 1.5, more preferably 0.8 to 1.2. Para. 40 notes the produced mixture slurry has excellent adhesion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carboxymethyl cellulose of the carboxymethyl cellulose salt of Ogata et al., to have a degree of etherification between 0.6 and 1.5, as taught by Morita et al., to support excellent adhesion as noted in Para. 40 of Morita et al.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 7, Ogata et al. in view of Morita et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1, wherein the carboxymethyl cellulose salt has a degree of etherification of greater than or equal to 0.6 and less than or equal to 1.1 (See e.g. the combination of references in claim 6. Ogata et al. teaches carboxymethyl cellulose sodium or ammonium salt in Para. 69 may act as the cross-linked water-insoluble polymer 33 in Para. 69 and 87. Morita et al. teaches the binder of carboxymethyl cellulose may have a high degree of etherification such as 0.6 to 1.5, more preferably 0.8 to 1.2 in Para. 123 which supports excellent adhesion in Para. 40. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 9, Ogata et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 1 wherein the Si compound includes a lithium ion conductive phase (see. e.g. the negative active material may include SiOx (where 0 < x < 2), a silicon oxide compound in Para. 121-123 which would inherently be conductive with the lithium ions reacting and diffusing with the silicon-based material in Para. 41, 88, and 161 Additionally, dependent claim 10 notes silicon oxide is a lithium ion conductive phase).
Ogata et al. fails to explicitly teach and silicon particles dispersed in the lithium ion conductive phase.
However, Morita et al. teaches a binder in a mixture slurry in Para. 130 that may contain carbon nanotubes and also an active material. The active material may be for a negative electrode in Para. 131 and 158. The negative electrode active material may comprise a silicon-based material in Para. 136-138. The binder may include carboxymethyl cellulose in Para. 121. The silicon oxide may comprise silicon nanoparticles dispersed in silicon oxide in Para. 138. Morita et al. notes the mixture slurry is associated with excellent electrical conductivity in Para. 40.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon oxide of Ogata et al., to include silicon nanoparticles dispersed in the silicon oxide, as taught by Morita et al., to support excellent electrical conductivity as noted in Para. 40 of Morita et al..
Regarding claim 10, Ogata et al. in view of Morita et al. teaches the negative electrode for secondary batteries according to claim 9, wherein the lithium ion conductive phase includes at least one of a silicate or silicon oxide (see e.g. Ogata et al. teaches the negative active material may include SiOx (where 0 < x < 2), a silicon oxide compound in Para. 121-123 which would inherently be conductive with the lithium ions reacting and diffusing with the silicon-based material in Para. 41, 88, and 161 Additionally, dependent claim 10 describes silicon oxide may meet the limitation of lithium ion conductive phase).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0393177 A1 teaches silicon in silicon oxide dispersion
WO 2018/146865 A1 teaches negative electrode that may be silicon based and have a carboxymethyl cellulose salt and single wall carbon nanotubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723