NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SLURRY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NEGATIVE ELECTRODE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 1 (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/8/2025, 12/12/2024, 11/25/2024, and 3/31/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2019/0260011 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu et al. teach a negative electrode for a secondary battery (Abstract discloses a method of preparing anode slurries for lithium-ion batteries.), comprising:
a conductive material (Paragraph 0012 discloses the anode slurry comprises a first conductive agent.), and
a negative electrode active material including at least a graphite-based material (Paragraphs 0015; 0025 disclose the anode slurry comprises mixing in a second conductive agent which is a graphite material.) and a silicon-based material (Paragraph 0012 discloses, in addition to the graphite material, the anode slurry comprises mixing in a silicon-based material.),
the graphite-based material comprising a granulated product comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite (Paragraph 0025 discloses the second conductive agent can be a mix of KS6 or KS15 (artificial/synthetic graphite) and expanded graphite (natural graphite).). However, Hu et al. do not teach at least a part of the natural graphite in the granulated product includes an exfoliated portion, wherein the exfoliated portion is in contact with the silicon-based material or another granulated product comprising the artificial graphite and the natural graphite, or the exfoliated portion includes a composite with the silicon-based material.
As indicated in the as-filed specification, the partial exfoliation of graphite is obtained during the hard mixing of the graphite agglomerate with the other slurry components. It is also further specified that the slurry is mixed using a known device like a planetary centrifugal mixer applying a kneading process and the collision between graphite and silicon generates the exfoliation (see “(2) Step of Carrying Out Hard Mixing of Negative Electrode Slurry in the as-filed specification).
In the case of Hu, the components of the slurry are also subjected to hard mixing as defined in the present specification. The slurry components are mixed via a planetary mixer (Paragraph 0045) and/or they are homogenized by a homogenizer such as an ultrasonicator, a stirring mixer, planetary mixer, a blender, a mill, a rotor-stator homogenizer, or a high-pressure homogenizer (Paragraph 0095).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that due to the use of hard mixing of anode slurry components in Hu, that exfoliation of natural graphite will occur in the process of the anode slurry synthesis.
Regarding claim 2, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the silicon-based material comprises either or both of silicon oxide and silicon-based alloy (Paragraph 0081 discloses SiOx or Si/M).
Regarding claim 3, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the silicon-based alloy comprises at least one selected from titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni)1 and copper (Cu) (Paragraph 0081 discloses the use of Si/M wherein M can comprise a transition metal.).
Regarding claim 4, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the conductive material includes carbon black (Paragraph 0022 discloses the first conductive agent consists of carbon black.).
Regarding claim 5, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the graphite-based material to the silicon-based material is 98:2-50:50 (Paragraph 0121 discloses the silicon-based material of the present invention has a content from about 1% to about 20% by weight, based on the total weight of the solid content in the anode slurry.).
Regarding claim 7, Hu et al. teach a secondary battery (Abstract; paragraph 0148), comprising: the negative electrode as defined in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above), a positive electrode (Paragraph 0148 discloses a cathode film.), a separator imposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Paragraph 0148 discloses the cathode and anode electrode plates were kept apart by separators.), and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0148 discloses the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 solution.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US 2019/0260011 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2020/0235395 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Hu et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the granulated product comprises the artificial graphite and the natural graphite at a weight ratio of 60:40-90:10.
Yoon et al. teach a composition for a negative electrode used in a lithium secondary battery (Paragraphs 0087; 0091). Further, the negative electrode slurry comprises artificial graphite: natural graphite: silicon-based negative electrode active material (SiO) being mixed in a weight ratio of 84.5:10.5:5 (Paragraph 0087). With a weight ratio of artificial graphite to natural graphite being 84.5:10.5, this is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu with the carbon material of Yoon in order to intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions, lithium metal, or tin.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulmann et al. (US 2019/0237749 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ulmann et al. teach a negative electrode for a secondary battery (Abstract discloses a method of preparing a negative electrode composition for a lithium-ion battery.) comprising:
a conductive material (Paragraph 0113 discloses the negative electrode can contain additional carbonaceous particulate materials.), and
a negative electrode active material including at least a graphite-based material (Example 1; Claim 1 discloses the negative electrode active material can comprise graphitic carbon.) and a silicon-based material (Example 1; Claim 1 discloses the negative electrode active material can comprise silicon in addition to the graphitic carbon.),
the graphite-based material comprising a granulated product comprising artificial graphite and natural graphite (Example 1; Claim 1 discloses the carbon comprises a mixture of natural and synthetic graphite. Further, Example 1; Prep B, paragraph 0233 discloses mixing silicon particles with expanded graphite (natural) and synthetic graphite.). However, Ulmann et al. do not teach at least a part of the natural graphite in the granulated product includes an exfoliated portion, wherein the exfoliated portion is in contact with the silicon-based material or another granulated product comprising the artificial graphite and the natural graphite, or the exfoliated portion includes a composite with the silicon-based material.
As indicated in the as-filed specification, the partial exfoliation of graphite is obtained during the mixing of the graphite agglomerate with the other slurry components. It is also further specified that the slurry is mixed using a known device like a planetary centrifugal mixer applying a kneading process and the collision between graphite and silicon generates the exfoliation (see “(2) Step of Carrying Out Hard Mixing of Negative Electrode Slurry of the as-filed specification.).
In the case of Ulmann, the components of the negative electrode material are also subjected to hard mixing as defined in the present specification. The components are mixed via a bead mill machine (Paragraph 0233) which is an example of hard mixing.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that due to the use of hard mixing of anode slurry components in Ulmann, that exfoliation of natural graphite will occur in the process of the anode slurry synthesis.
Regarding claim 4, Ulmann et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the conductive material includes carbon black (Paragraph 0113 discloses the negative electrode can contain additional carbonaceous particulate materials such as carbon black.)
Regarding claim 5, Ulmann et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the graphite-based material to the silicon-based material is 98:2-50:50 (Paragraph 0138 discloses the precursor composition comprises from about 0.1 wt. % to about 90 wt. % of silicon, based on the total weight of the precursor composition, for example, from about 0.1 wt. % to about 80 wt. %, or from about 0.1 wt. % to about 70 wt. %, or from about 0.1 wt. % to about 60 wt. %, or from about 0.1 wt. % to about 50 wt. %, or from about 0.1 wt. % to about 40 wt. %, or from about 0.5 wt. % to about 30 wt. %, or from about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt. %, or from about 1 wt. % to about 20 wt. %, or from about 1 wt. % to about 15 wt. %, or from about 1 wt. to about 10 wt. %, or from about 1 wt. % to about 5 wt. %.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulmann et al. (US 2019/0237749 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2020/0235395 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ulmann et al. teach the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the granulated product comprises the artificial graphite and the natural graphite at a weight ratio of 60:40-90:10.
Yoon et al. teach a composition for a negative electrode used in a lithium secondary battery (Paragraphs 0087; 0091). Further, the negative electrode slurry comprises artificial graphite: natural graphite: silicon-based negative electrode active material (SiO) being mixed in a weight ratio of 84.5:10.5:5 (Paragraph 0087). With a weight ratio of artificial graphite to natural graphite being 84.5:10, this is within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ulmann with the carbon material of Yoon in order to intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions, lithium metal, or tin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 January 6th, 2026