DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/037,488, “ALL-SOLID LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF”, was filed with the USPTO on 5/17/2023 and has a foreign priority document of KR10-2021-0069415 filed on 5/28/2021.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 5/17/2023 and 2/18/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/037,488, filed on 5/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2023, 5/22/2024, 12/23/2024, 5/8/2025 and 12/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II: a method of preparing the all-solid lithium secondary battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because it does not have the correct status identified. To overcome the objection, Examiner suggests that it should be withdrawn not amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 8-14 of copending Application No. 18/037,301 (hereinafter 301’) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20200339421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 301’ teaches an all-solid lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode active material layer;
a negative electrode active material layer; and
a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer,
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a carbon structure and silver nanoparticles (see claim 1 of 301’),
301’ does not teach wherein the carbon structure comprises at least one hollow-type particle, and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow and a carbonaceous shell surrounding the hollow.
Shimizu et al. teaches a carbon structure (multi-walled carbon nanotube, see [0031]) comprises at least one hollow-type particle (MWCNT, [0023]), and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow (hollow, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) and a carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) surrounding the hollow (hollow, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
982
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon structure in the negative electrode active material layer taught by 301’ with the MWCNT that comprises hollow and shell as taught by Shimizu et al. to include properties excellent in thermal stability, chemical stability and conductivity (see Shimizu et al. [0004], [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles are disposed on a surface of the carbon structure (see claim 2 of 301’).
Regarding claim 3, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) has a thickness of 1 nm to 15 nm (3-4 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (MWCNT, Shimizu et al. [0123]) has a specific surface area of 10 m2/g to 300 m2/g (278 m2/g, see Shimizu et al. Example 2, [0123]).
Regarding claim 5, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the hollow-type particle (MWCNT, [0023]) has an average particle diameter (particle diameter, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) of 5 nm to 100 nm (~10 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in Raman spectrum measurement of the carbon structure (MWCNT, Shimizu et al. [0123]), the carbon structure has an ID/IG of 0.1 to 1.5 (1.11; G/D ratios of 0.9, see Shimizu et al. Example 2, [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (multi-walled carbon nanotube, see Shimizu et al. [0031]) has a secondary particle shape (Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube Aggregate, Shimizu et al. [0032]) in which a plurality of hollow-type particles are bonded to each other (see Shimizu et al. bottom Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure is included in an amount of 50 wt % to 98 wt % in the negative electrode active material layer (see claim 8 of 301’).
Regarding claim 9, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles have an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm (see claim 9 of 301’).
Regarding claim 10, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in the negative electrode active material layer,
the silver nanoparticles are included in an amount of 1 wt % to 40 wt % based on a total weight of the carbon structure and the silver nanoparticles (see claim 10 of 301’).
Regarding claim 11, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein a weight ratio of the carbon structure to the silver nanoparticles is in a range of 99:1 to 60:40 (see claim 11 of 301’).
Regarding claim 12, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a negative electrode binder (see claim 12 of 301’).
Regarding claim 13, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 100 μm (see claim 13 of 301’).
Regarding claim 14, 301’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches further comprising:
a negative electrode collector; and
a metal layer disposed between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode collector in a charged state,
wherein the metal layer comprises lithium (see claim 14 of 301’).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 6-12 of copending Application No. 18/038,390 (hereinafter 390’) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20200339421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 390’ teaches an all-solid lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode active material layer;
a negative electrode active material layer; and
a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (see claim 1 of 390’),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a carbon structure (platelet carbon nanofibers (PCNF), see claim 1 of 390’) and silver nanoparticles (silver nanoparticles, see claim 1 of 390’),
390’ does not teach wherein the carbon structure comprises at least one hollow-type particle, and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow and a carbonaceous shell surrounding the hollow.
Shimizu et al. teaches a carbon structure (multi-walled carbon nanotube, see [0031]) comprises at least one hollow-type particle (MWCNT, [0023]), and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow (hollow, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) and a carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) surrounding the hollow (hollow, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the platelet carbon nanofibers (PCNF) in the negative electrode active material layer taught by 390’ with the MWCNT that comprises hollow and shell as taught by Shimizu et al. to include properties excellent in thermal stability, chemical stability and conductivity (see Shimizu et al. [0004], [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles are disposed on a surface of the carbon structure (see claim 2 of 390’).
Regarding claim 3, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) has a thickness of 1 nm to 15 nm (3-4 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (MWCNT, Shimizu et al. [0123]) has a specific surface area of 10 m2/g to 300 m2/g (278 m2/g, see Shimizu et al. Example 2, [0123]).
Regarding claim 5, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the hollow-type particle (MWCNT, [0023]) has an average particle diameter (particle diameter, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) of 5 nm to 100 nm (~10 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in Raman spectrum measurement of the carbon structure (MWCNT, Shimizu et al. [0123]), the carbon structure has an ID/IG of 0.1 to 1.5 (1.11; G/D ratios of 0.9, see Shimizu et al. Example 2, [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (multi-walled carbon nanotube, see Shimizu et al. [0031]) has a secondary particle shape (Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube Aggregate, Shimizu et al. [0032]) in which a plurality of hollow-type particles are bonded to each other (see Shimizu et al. bottom Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure is included in an amount of 50 wt % to 98 wt % in the negative electrode active material layer (see claim 6 of 390’).
Regarding claim 9, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles have an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm (see claim 7 of 390’).
Regarding claim 10, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in the negative electrode active material layer,
the silver nanoparticles are included in an amount of 1 wt % to 40 wt % based on a total weight of the carbon structure and the silver nanoparticles (see claim 8 of 390’).
Regarding claim 11, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein a weight ratio of the carbon structure to the silver nanoparticles is in a range of 99:1 to 60:40 (see claim 9 of 390’).
Regarding claim 12, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a negative electrode binder (see claim 10 of 390’).
Regarding claim 13, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 100 μm (see claim 11 of 390’).
Regarding claim 14, 390’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches further comprising:
a negative electrode collector; and
a metal layer disposed between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode collector in a charged state,
wherein the metal layer comprises lithium (see claim 12 of 390’).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 11-17 of copending Application No. 18/034,650 (hereinafter 650’) in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20200339421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 650’ teaches an all-solid lithium secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode active material layer;
a negative electrode active material layer; and
a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (see claim 1 of 650’),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a carbon structure (graphitized platelet carbon nanofibers, see claim 1 of 650’) and silver nanoparticles (silver nanoparticles, see claim 1 of 650’),
650’ does not teach wherein the carbon structure comprises at least one hollow-type particle, and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow and a carbonaceous shell surrounding the hollow.
Shimizu et al. teaches a carbon structure (multi-walled carbon nanotube, see [0031]) comprises at least one hollow-type particle (MWCNT, [0023]), and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow (hollow, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) and a carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) surrounding the hollow (hollow, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the graphitized platelet carbon nanofibers in the negative electrode active material layer taught by 650’ with the MWCNT that comprises hollow and shell as taught by Shimizu et al. to include properties excellent in thermal stability, chemical stability and conductivity (see Shimizu et al. [0004], [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles are disposed on a surface of the carbon structure (see claim 4 of 650’).
Regarding claim 3, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) has a thickness of 1 nm to 15 nm (3-4 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (MWCNT, Shimizu et al. [0123]) has a specific surface area of 10 m2/g to 300 m2/g (278 m2/g, see Shimizu et al. Example 2, [0123]).
Regarding claim 5, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the hollow-type particle (MWCNT, [0023]) has an average particle diameter (particle diameter, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) of 5 nm to 100 nm (~10 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in Raman spectrum measurement of the carbon structure (MWCNT, Shimizu et al. [0123]), the carbon structure has an ID/IG of 0.1 to 1.5 (1.11; G/D ratios of 0.9, see Shimizu et al. Example 2, [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (multi-walled carbon nanotube, see Shimizu et al. [0031]) has a secondary particle shape (Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube Aggregate, Shimizu et al. [0032]) in which a plurality of hollow-type particles are bonded to each other (see Shimizu et al. bottom Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure is included in an amount of 50 wt % to 98 wt % in the negative electrode active material layer (see claim 11 of 650’).
Regarding claim 9, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles have an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm (see claim 12 of 650’).
Regarding claim 10, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in the negative electrode active material layer,
the silver nanoparticles are included in an amount of 1 wt % to 40 wt % based on a total weight of the carbon structure and the silver nanoparticles (see claim 13 of 650’).
Regarding claim 11, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein a weight ratio of the carbon structure to the silver nanoparticles is in a range of 99:1 to 60:40 (see claim 14 of 650’).
Regarding claim 12, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a negative electrode binder (see claim 15 of 650’).
Regarding claim 13, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 1 μm to 100 μm (see claim 16 of 650’).
Regarding claim 14, 650’ in view of Shimizu et al. teaches further comprising:
a negative electrode collector; and
a metal layer disposed between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode collector in a charged state,
wherein the metal layer comprises lithium (see claim 17 of 650’).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-2, 5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashiro et al. (US 20200373609 A1) in view of Wee et al. (US 20110223480 A1, provided on the IDS filed 5/22/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Yashiro et al. teaches an all-solid lithium secondary battery (1, Fig. 2), comprising (see claim 1):
a positive electrode active material layer (12, Fig. 2);
a negative electrode active material layer (22, Fig. 2); and
a solid electrolyte layer (30, Fig. 2) disposed between the positive electrode active material layer (12, Fig. 2) and the negative electrode active material layer (22, Fig. 2),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer (22, Fig. 2) comprises a carbon structure (amorphous carbon/carbon black, [0066]) and silver nanoparticles (Ag particle, [0065]; see claim 21).
Yashiro et al. does not teach wherein the carbon structure comprises at least one hollow-type particle, and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow and a carbonaceous shell surrounding the hollow.
Wee et al. teaches an electrode (claim 20) comprises:
at least one hollow-type particle (single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), see [0040]), and the hollow-type particle comprises a hollow (hollow cylindrical, [0040]) and a carbonaceous shell (wall of SWCNT, [0040]) surrounding the hollow; Ag nanoparticles (AgNP, [0097]; see Fig. 3a-3c and 4b-4d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the amorphous carbon/carbon black and Ag particle used in the negative electrode active material layer taught by Yashiro et al. with the SWCNT that comprises a hollow cylindrical and a wall of SWCNT surrounding the hollow and AgNP as taught by Wee et al., because the use of carbon nanotubes as electrode material can provide a high electrical conductivity together with provide good mechanical and thermal properties (see Wee et al. [0041]) and the presence of AgNP can help in reducing the inter-tube contact resistance of the CNT and leading to a decrease in the overall internal resistance of the device, which is important in improving the power density (see Wee et al. [0112]).
Regarding claim 2, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles (AgNP, [0097]; see Wee et al. Fig. 3a-3c and 4b-4d) are disposed on a surface of the carbon structure (CNT in Wee et al. Fig. 3a-3c).
Regarding claim 5, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the hollow-type particle (SWCNT, Wee et al. [0040]) has an average particle diameter of 5 nm to 100 nm (about 5-7 nm, see Wee et al. Fig. 4d).
Regarding claim 7, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), see Wee et al. [0040]) has a secondary particle shape (CNT/Ag-CNT network, Wee et al. Fig. 4(b), [0014]) in which a plurality of hollow-type particles (single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), see Wee et al. [0040]) are bonded to each other (inter-tube junction, see Wee et al. Fig. 4(b), 12(b)).
Regarding claim 8, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure ( SWCNT, Wee et al. [0040]) is included in the negative electrode active material layer (22, Yashiro Fig. 2).
Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. does not teach the carbon structure is in an amount of 50 wt % to 98 wt %.
Yashiro et al. teaches the carbon structure (carbon black, CB, see Ex 11 in Table 1, page 9) is in an amount of 50 wt % to 98 wt % (80 wt%, see Ex 11 in Table 1, page 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the amount (wt%) of SWCNT taught by Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. to be 80 wt% taught by Yashiro et al. to exhibit higher discharge capacity (see Yashiro et al. [0115]).
Regarding claim 9, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the silver nanoparticles have an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm (1, 4, 7, 13 nm, see Wee et al. Table 4, page 10).
Regarding claim 10, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein, in the negative electrode active material layer (22, Yashiro Fig. 2),
the silver nanoparticles (AgNP, [0097]; see Wee et al. Fig. 3a-3c and 4b-4d) are included.
Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. does not teach the silver nanoparticles are in an amount of 1 wt % to 40 wt % based on a total weight of the carbon structure and the silver nanoparticles.
Yashiro et al. teaches the silver nanoparticles (Ag, see Ex 11 in Table 1, page 9) are in an amount of 1 wt % to 40 wt % (20 wt%, see Ex 11 in Table 1, page 9) based on a total weight of the carbon structure and the silver nanoparticles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the amount (wt%) of AgNP taught by Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. to be 20 wt% taught by Yashiro et al. to exhibit higher discharge capacity (see Yashiro et al. [0115]) and to keep the amount of Ag included in the negative active material layer about 10 wt % or more because when the amount of Ag included in the negative active material layer decreases, the amount of Ag remaining during discharge also decreases, and can be insufficient to inhibit formation of pores (see Yashiro et al. [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. does not teach wherein a weight ratio of the carbon structure to the silver nanoparticles is in a range of 99:1 to 60:40 .
Yashiro et al. teaches wherein a weight ratio of the carbon structure to the silver nanoparticles is in a range of 99:1 to 60:40 (80:20, see Ex 11 in Table 1, page 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of the SWCNT to the AgNP taught by Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. to be 80:20 as taught by Yashiro et al. to exhibit higher discharge capacity (see Yashiro et al. [0115]).
Regarding claim 12, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer (22, Yashiro Fig. 2) further comprises a negative electrode binder (binder, Yashiro [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer (22, Yashiro Fig. 2) has a thickness of 1 μm to 100 μm (1 μm to about 20 μm, Yashiro [0070]).
Regarding claim 14, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee. et al. teaches further comprising:
a negative electrode collector (21, Yashiro Fig. 2); and
a metal layer (23, Yashiro Fig. 2) disposed between the negative electrode active material layer (22, Yashiro Fig. 2) and the negative electrode collector (21, Yashiro Fig. 2) in a charged state (overcharged state, see Yashiro claim 11),
wherein the metal layer comprises lithium (see Yashiro claim 11).
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yashiro et al. (US 20200373609 A1) in view of Wee et al. (US 20110223480 A1, provided on the IDS filed 5/22/2024), further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20200339421 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. is silent wherein the carbonaceous shell has a thickness of 1 nm to 15 nm.
Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbonaceous shell (shell, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6) has a thickness of 1 nm to 15 nm (3-4 nm, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the SWCNT taught by Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. with the MWCNT that shell has a thickness of 3-4 nm as taught by Shimizu et al., because the MWCNT is excellent in thermal stability and conductivity when the diameter of the outermost wall of MWCNT is 3 nm or more (see Shimizu et al. [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. is silent wherein the carbon structure has a specific surface area of 10 m2/g to 300 m2/g.
Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the carbon structure (MWCNT, [0123]) has a specific surface area of 10 m2/g to 300 m2/g (278 m2/g, see Example 2, [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the SWCNT taught by Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. with the MWCNT that has a specific surface area of 278 m2/g as taught by Shimizu et al. to have excellent thermal stability and chemical stability (see Shimizu et al. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. is silent wherein, in Raman spectrum measurement of the carbon structure, the carbon structure has an ID/IG of 0.1 to 1.5.
Shimizu et al. teaches wherein, in Raman spectrum measurement of the carbon structure (MWCNT, [0123]), the carbon structure has an ID/IG of 0.1 to 1.5 (1.11; G/D ratios of 0.9, see Example 2, [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the SWCNT taught by Yashiro et al. in view of Wee et al. with the MWCNT that has an ID/IG of 1.11 as taught by Shimizu et al. to have excellent thermal stability and chemical stability (see Shimizu et al. [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(Kim) US 20220140340 A1: electrode comprising multi-walled carbon nanotube;
(Lee) US 20250336935 A1: lithium titanium oxide (LTO) and carbon nanotube (CNT) as anode active material layer;
(Jung) US 20220393154 A1: double carbon coating layers on anode;
(Son) US 20240322126 A1: 2-3 graphene/amorphous carbon/Ag layers on anode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723