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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/19/2025:
Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, and 20 have been amended and Claims 2 and 4 are canceled.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment and reworded only to reflect amended claim limitations. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended and are addressed below.
Arguments directed at amended Claim 1
Applicant argues that Kouhei teaches away from the claimed invention of a second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 1 wt% to 3 wt%.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kouhei discloses the second layer has a lower content (mass ratio) of the silicon-based active material than the first layer and discloses a preferred embodiment where the second layer has substantially no silicon-based active material (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0023], and [0025]). However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). As such, a skilled artisan would still be capable of using the teaching of Kouhei to achieve a second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 1 wt% to 3 wt%.
Applicant further argues that the that range of “less than 6%” is excessively broad and encompasses an infinite number of possibilities.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The range of less than 6% is not excessively broad, as any range contains an infinite number of possibilities. Kouhei additionally discloses the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer is preferably less than the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer in order to achieve favorable output characteristics, and that balancing the graphite and silicon amount in an electrode active material layer ensures compatibility between high energy density and favorable output characteristics (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0023], and [0029]), thus providing guiding motivation.
Applicant further argues that the claimed range yields unexpected results.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. There does not appear to be criticality in the claimed range of second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 1 wt% to 3 wt% as similar results are between Example 10 (where the silicon is 0%, energy density is 782 Wh/L, and capacity retention is 89%) and Example 1 (where the silicon is 2%, energy density is 780 Wh/L, and capacity retention is 92%) and Example 4 (where the silicon is 2%, energy density is 782 Wh/L, and capacity retention is 90%). Similar results are also shown between Example 7 (where the silicon is 5%, energy density is 785 Wh/L, and capacity retention is 85%) and Example 6 (where the silicon is 2%, energy density is 786 Wh/L, and capacity retention is 80%). Further, there do not appear to be enough data points above 3% to show unexpected results above 3%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8, 10, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei et al. WO-2019187537-A1 (hereinafter “Kouhei”) (PGPub US-20210013496-A1 as English translation, cited in PTO-892) in view of Lee et al. US-20180287145-A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kouhei discloses a negative electrode plate 12 (see paragraphs [0005] and [0022]-[0023]), comprising:
a negative electrode current collector 40, a first negative electrode active material layer 42, and a second negative electrode active material layer 43, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 42 is disposed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector 40, and the second negative electrode active material layer 43 is disposed on a surface of the first negative electrode active material layer 42 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0005], [0022]-[0023], and [0052]-[0054]),
wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 42 comprises a first negative electrode active material, and the first negative electrode active material comprises a first graphite and a first silicon material (see paragraphs [0023], [0029], and [0052]-[0054]); and
the second negative electrode active material layer 43 comprises a second negative electrode active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprises a second graphite and a second silicon material (see paragraphs [0009], [0023], and [0052]-[0054]); and
a mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer is greater than a mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], and [0023]).
Kouhei additionally discloses the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer is preferably less than the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer in order to achieve favorable output characteristics, with the mass % of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer being about 6% to 12% by mass (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0023], and [0029]). As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to make the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer less than 6%, which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 1 wt % to 3 wt %.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei and Lee wherein the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranges from 1 wt % to 3 wt % in order for the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer to be less than the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer and achieve favorable output characteristics.
Kouhei is silent on an OI value of the first graphite being greater than an OI value of the second graphite, wherein OI=I004/I110, I004 denotes a peak intensity of a 004 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction, and I110 denotes a peak intensity of a 110 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative electrodes (see abstract), Lee discloses a negative electrode plate, comprising:
a negative electrode current collector 100, a first negative electrode active material layer 210, and a second negative electrode active material layer 220, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 210 is disposed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector 100, and the second negative electrode active material layer 220 is disposed on a surface of the first negative electrode active material layer 210 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0009], [0017], and [0020]-[0021]),
wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 210 comprises a first negative electrode active material, and the first negative electrode active material comprises a first graphite in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0009], [0017], and [0020]-[0021]); and
the second negative electrode active material layer 220 comprises a second negative electrode active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprises a second graphite in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0009], [0017], and [0020]-[0021]). Lee further discloses an orientation index measured by the (110) and (004) planes of the second graphite active material particles may be adjusted such that the lithium ion diffusion rate of the second graphite active material particles is two to three times that of the first graphite active material particles (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]). So, the second graphite has a lower orientation index than the first graphite, as evidenced by the instant application, that the lower OI value leads to an increased diffusion rate (see paragraphs [0011]-[0012] of published instant application), and the second graphite diffusion rate of Lee is larger than the first graphite diffusion rate.
Lee additionally discloses the second graphite having a high lithium ion diffusion rate by adjusting the orientation index results in lithium ions being smoothly diffused at the surface thereof, and, accordingly, charging performance of a battery may be enhanced (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027] and [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode sheet disclosed by Kouhei wherein an OI value of the first graphite is greater than an OI value of the second graphite, wherein OI=I004/I110, I004 denotes a peak intensity of a 004 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction, and I110 denotes a peak intensity of a 110 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction, as disclosed by Lee, so lithium ions are smoothly diffused at the surface thereof, and, accordingly, charging performance of a battery may be enhanced.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses the mass ratio of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer is about 9 mass% (see paragraphs [0005], [0023], [0029], and [0052]). This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer ranging from 3 wt % to 9 wt %. A skilled artisan would recognize mass% and wt% are equivalent measurements.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses the mass ratio of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer is about 9 mass% and there is no silicon in the second negative electrode active material (see paragraphs [0005], [0023], [0029], and [0052]-[0054]) (see paragraphs [0052]-[0054]). As such, assuming 100 unit mass basis, the total mass of the two active layers would be 200 units. With 9 units of silicon in only the first layer, this results in 4.5 mass% of silicon based on the total of the two layers. This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a sum of a mass of the first silicon material and that of the second silicon material accounting for 1 wt % to 9 wt % of a total mass of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer. A skilled artisan would recognize mass% and wt% are equivalent measurements.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses a ratio of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer is 1:2 (the second layer is twice the thickness of the first layer) (see paragraphs [0026] and [0056]). This ratio falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed ratio of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 1:9 to 9:1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses the total thickness of the electrode layers may be 20 μm to 120 μm and the thickness of each layer may compose a certain percentage of that total thickness to ensure compatibility between high energy density and favorable output characteristics (see paragraphs [0026] and [0056]).
Kouhei is not sufficiently specific on a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer ranging from 20 μm to 180 μm and a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 20 μm to 180 μm.
However, Lee discloses the first active material layer may have a thickness of 60 μm and the second active material layer may have a thickness of 30 μm (see paragraphs [0048]-[0050]). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed ranges of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer ranging from 20 μm to 180 μm and a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 20 μm to 180 μm.
A skilled artisan would recognize these thicknesses meet the criteria disclosed by Kouhei and therefore are appropriate thicknesses to use in the negative electrode plate of Kouhei.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei wherein a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer falls in the range 20 μm to 180 μm and a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer falls in the range 20 μm to 180 μm, as disclosed by Lee, as they are appropriate thicknesses to ensure the compatibility between high energy density and favorable output characteristics of Kouhei.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses the first silicon material is selected from elemental silicon (Si) or silicon oxide (see paragraphs [0027] and [0052]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses graphite, SiO.sub.x (x=0.94) having a carbon coating film, CMC sodium salt (functioning as a dispersant), and SBR (functioning as an adhesive agent) at a mass ratio of 88:9:1:1 were mixed, and an appropriate amount of water was added so as to prepare a first negative electrode mix slurry for a first layer (see paragraph [0052]). The published instant application discloses CMC may be a dispersant and the adhesive agent may be SBR (see paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0066], and [0068] of published instant application). A skilled artisan would recognize the mass ratio is an equivalent measurement to the wt %.
The total active material mass ratio would be 97 from the graphite and silicon oxide. This falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the electrode active material layer comprising 90 wt % to 98.99 wt % of the first negative electrode active material.
The mass ratio of the dispersing agent of 1 falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the electrode active material layer comprising 0.5 wt % to 3 wt % of the first dispersing agent.
The mass ratio of the adhesive agent of 1 falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the electrode active material layer comprising 0.5 wt % to 5 wt % of the first adhesive agent.
Kouhei also discloses a conductive material may be included as a coating film (see paragraph [0028]), but is silent on the first negative active material layer comprising 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % of a first conductive agent.
However, Lee discloses including a conductive material having conductivity in the first negative active material in an amount of 1.0 wt % (see paragraphs [0030], [0034]-[0035], and [0047]-[0048]). A skilled artisan would recognize using a conductive material having conductivity would increase the conductivity of the active material and 1.0 wt % is an appropriate amount to include. The amount of 1.0 wt % of conductive material falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the first negative active material layer comprising 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % of a first conductive agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei by including 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % of a first conductive agent in the first negative active material layer, as disclosed by Lee, in order to increase conductivity, as is common in the art.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses graphite, PAA lithium salt, CMC sodium salt (functioning as a dispersant), and SBR (functioning as an adhesive agent) at a mass ratio of 97:1:1:1 were mixed, and an appropriate amount of water was added so as to prepare a second negative electrode mix slurry for a second layer (see paragraph [0054]). The published instant application discloses CMC may be a dispersant and the adhesive agent may be SBR (see paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0066], and [0068] of published instant application). A skilled artisan would recognize the mass ratio is an equivalent measurement to the wt %.
The mass ratio of the active material of 97 falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the electrode active material layer comprising 90 wt % to 98.99 wt % of the second negative electrode active material.
The mass ratio of the dispersing agent of 1 falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the electrode active material layer comprising 0.5 wt % to 3 wt % of the second dispersing agent.
The mass ratio of the adhesive agent of 1 falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the electrode active material layer comprising 0.5 wt % to 5 wt % of the second adhesive agent.
Kouhei also discloses a conductive material may be included as a coating film (see paragraph [0028]), but is silent on the second negative active material layer comprising 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % of a second conductive agent.
However, Lee discloses including a conductive material having conductivity in the first negative active material in an amount of 1.0 wt % (see paragraphs [0030], [0034]-[0035], and [0049]-[0050]). A skilled artisan would recognize using a conductive material having conductivity would increase the conductivity of the active material and 1.0 wt % is an appropriate amount to include. The amount of 1.0 wt % of conductive material falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the second negative active material layer comprising 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % of a second conductive agent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei by including 0.01 wt % to 2 wt % of a second conductive agent in the second negative active material layer, as disclosed by Lee, in order to increase conductivity, as is common in the art.
Regarding Claim 20, Kouhei discloses a lithium-ion battery (a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery that cycles lithium ions) (see abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0013], and [0020]), comprising: a negative electrode plate 12 (see paragraphs [0005] and [0022]-[0023]),
wherein the negative electrode plate 12 comprises: a negative electrode current collector 40, a first negative electrode active material layer 42, and a second negative electrode active material layer 43, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 42 is disposed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector 40, and the second negative electrode active material layer 43 is disposed on a surface of the first negative electrode active material layer 42 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0005], [0022]-[0023], and [0052]-[0054]),
wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 42 comprises a first negative electrode active material, and the first negative electrode active material comprises a first graphite and a first silicon material (see paragraphs [0023], [0029], and [0052]-[0054]); and
the second negative electrode active material layer 43 comprises a second negative electrode active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprises a second graphite and a second silicon material (see paragraphs [0009], [0023], and [0052]-[0054]); and
a mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer is greater than a mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], and [0023]).
Kouhei additionally discloses the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer is preferably less than the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer in order to achieve favorable output characteristics, with the mass % of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer being about 6% to 12% by mass (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0023], and [0029]). As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to make the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer less than 6%, which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranging from 1 wt % to 3 wt %.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei and Lee wherein the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer ranges from 1 wt % to 3 wt % in order for the mass proportion of the second silicon material in the second negative electrode active material layer to be less than the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer and achieve favorable output characteristics.
Kouhei is silent on an OI value of the first graphite being greater than an OI value of the second graphite, wherein OI=I004/I110, I004 denotes a peak intensity of a 004 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction, and I110 denotes a peak intensity of a 110 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative electrodes (see abstract), Lee discloses a negative electrode plate, comprising:
a negative electrode current collector 100, a first negative electrode active material layer 210, and a second negative electrode active material layer 220, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 210 is disposed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector 100, and the second negative electrode active material layer 220 is disposed on a surface of the first negative electrode active material layer 210 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0009], [0017], and [0020]-[0021]),
wherein the first negative electrode active material layer 210 comprises a first negative electrode active material, and the first negative electrode active material comprises a first graphite in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0009], [0017], and [0020]-[0021]); and
the second negative electrode active material layer 220 comprises a second negative electrode active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprises a second graphite in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0009], [0017], and [0020]-[0021]). Lee further discloses an orientation index measured by the (110) and (004) planes of the second graphite active material particles may be adjusted such that the lithium ion diffusion rate of the second graphite active material particles is two to three times that of the first graphite active material particles (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]). So, the second graphite has a lower orientation index than the first graphite, as evidenced by the instant application, that the lower OI value leads to an increased diffusion rate (see paragraphs [0011]-[0012] of published instant application), and the second graphite diffusion rate of Lee is larger than the first graphite diffusion rate.
Lee additionally discloses the second graphite having a high lithium ion diffusion rate by adjusting the orientation index results in lithium ions being smoothly diffused at the surface thereof, and, accordingly, charging performance of a battery may be enhanced (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027] and [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium-ion battery disclosed by Kouhei wherein an OI value of the first graphite is greater than an OI value of the second graphite, wherein OI=I004/I110, I004 denotes a peak intensity of a 004 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction, and I110 denotes a peak intensity of a 110 crystal plane of graphite during X-ray diffraction, as disclosed by Lee, so lithium ions are smoothly diffused at the surface thereof, and, accordingly, charging performance of a battery may be enhanced.
Claims 9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al. CN-108807848-A (PGPub US-20190348667-A1 as English translation, cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Kang”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Kouhei and Lee are silent on the OI value of the first graphite ranging from 5 to 7, and the OI value of the second graphite ranging from 3 to 5.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative active material layers comprising graphite (see abstract), Kang discloses the OI (orientation index) value according to a ratio of the 004 and 110 peaks on an x-ray diffraction analysis of an electrode layer comprising graphite is preferably 0.5-7 (see paragraphs [0005]-[0006], [0044]-[0048] and [0094]).
Kang additionally discloses if the OI value of the negative electrode layer is too small, the active material tends to be disorderly arranged and the adhesion of the negative electrode layer is bad, resulting in the deteriorated reaction interface, so that the cycle performance of the battery is deteriorated and if the OI value of the negative electrode layer is too large, the active material tends to be arranged in parallel to the current collector and the effective ion-intercalatable end faces on the negative electrode layer is less, thus the demand for fast charging cannot be met (see paragraph [0024]). As such, the OI value is seen as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Furthermore, in the combined invention of Kouhei, Lee, and Kang, there are two active material layers comprising graphite, with the first layer comprising a first graphite having a greater OI value than the second graphite in the second layer, as discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Combined with the teaching from Kang of having an OI value of a graphite active material in the range 0.5-7, a skilled artisan would be motivated to use a graphite active material on the upper end of that range for the first graphite active material and a graphite active material on the lower end of that range for the second graphite active material while optimizing the OI value in each. As such, the OI values of the first and second graphite active materials would substantially overlap and therefore render obvious the claimed ranges of the OI value of the first graphite ranging from 5 to 7, and the OI value of the second graphite ranging from 3 to 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei and Lee wherein the OI value of the first graphite ranges from 5 to 7, and the OI value of the second graphite ranges from 3 to 5, as disclosed by Kang, in order to find an optimum OI value to avoid cycle deterioration of the battery and achieve fast charging.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Kouhei and Lee are silent on the first graphite having an ultimate compacted density ranging from 1.75 g/cm3 to 1.83 g/cm3; and the second graphite having an ultimate compacted density ranging from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3.
However, Kang discloses the ultimate compacted density (press density) of negative electrode layer is preferably 0.8 g/cm3-2.0 g/cm3 (see paragraphs [0040] and [0042])
Kang additionally discloses the controlling the ultimate compacted density further controls the OI value (see paragraph [0040]), so a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the compacted density in order to achieve the proper OI value (see importance of OI value discussed in Claim 9 above). As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the ultimate compacted density in order optimize the OI value of the negative active material layers in the combined invention of Kouhei, Lee, and Kang and arrive at the first graphite having an ultimate compacted density ranging from 1.75 g/cm3 to 1.83 g/cm3 and the second graphite having an ultimate compacted density ranging from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kang wherein the ultimate compacted density ranges from 1.75 g/cm3 to 1.83 g/cm3 and the second graphite having an ultimate compacted density ranges from 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3, as disclosed by Kang, in order to achieve a proper OI value in each layer.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Kouhei further discloses the carbon-based (which may be graphite) active materials in each layer may have each a median diameter D50 of 5 to 30 μm (see paragraphs [0023], [0030], [0033], [0052]-[0054]). These ranges substantially overlap and therefore render obvious the claimed ranges of the first graphite having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 10 μm to 20 μm; and the second graphite having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 10 μm to 20 μm.
Kouhei also discloses the appropriate D50 of the materials aids in relaxing the volume change of the silicon-based active material (see paragraph [0030]) so a skilled artisan would want to optimize the particle size of the graphite to appropriately account for the volume change of the silicon-based active material.
However, if Kouhei is found to not be sufficiently specific, Kang discloses the average particle diameter D50 of the of the negative electrode active material (disclosed as being graphite that may also contain silicon) is preferably 4-15 μm and combining an appropriate average particle diameter D50 and OI value leads to improved kinetic performance and a fast charge capability of the battery (see abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0020], [0039], [0043], and [0045]-[0048]), which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed ranges of the first graphite having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 10 μm to 20 μm; and the second graphite having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 10 μm to 20 μm.
Kang additionally discloses if D50 is too small, the adhesion of the negative electrode layer is relatively small, thus the battery kinetic performance will be impaired and if D50 is too large, the solid phase diffusion is difficult, thus the fast charge function cannot be satisfied (see paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0024], and [0039]). As such, the particle diameter D50 is viewed as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei wherein the first graphite has a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 10 μm to 20 μm; and the second graphite has a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 10 μm to 20 μm, as disclosed by Kang, in order to optimize the particle diameter of the graphite and ensure the kinetic performance and fast charge are not impaired.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei in view of Lee as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Okai et al. US-20170309913-A1 (hereinafter “Okai”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claims 10 and 12 (see rejection of Claims 10 and 12 above). Kouhei further discloses the first silicon material may be a carbon-coated elemental silicon to increase conductivity (see paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
Kouhei is silent on the silicon having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 0.01 μm to 1 μm and a carbon-coated layer having a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 10 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of carbon coated silicon (see abstract), Okai discloses a silicon nanoparticle 101 having a D50 (particle diameter) of about 10 nm (0.01 μm) and a carbon coating 103 with a thickness of 5 nm in Fig. 3 (see paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0015], [0040]-[0041], and [0060]). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed ranges of the silicon having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 0.01 μm to 1 μm and a carbon-coated layer having a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 10 nm.
Okai additionally discloses when the diameter of the silicon nanoparticle is 1 nm (0.001 μm) or less, a cohesion force between the silicon nanoparticles becomes strong, and as a result, the miniaturization effect is not manifested and when the diameter is 100 nm (0.1 μm) or more, there is a high possibility that the silicon nanoparticle is destroyed by mechanical strain according to charging and discharging of lithium ions (see paragraph [0040]). Okai further discloses when the thickness of the carbon coating is 0.5 nm or less, there is a technical difficulty to uniformly cover the surfaces of the silicon nanoparticles and when the thickness is 100 nm or more, there is a high possibility that the carbon coating layer 103 is peeled off from the surface of the silicon nanoparticle 101 (see paragraph [0041]). As such, these values are viewed as result effective variables and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). A skilled artisan would be motivated to use the proper dimensions for these parameters to avoid adverse effects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei wherein the silicon has a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 0.01 μm to 1 μm and a carbon-coated layer having a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 10 nm, as disclosed by Okai, in order to increase conductivity and avoid a cohesion force between the silicon nanoparticles becoming too strong and avoid mechanical strain on the silicon nanoparticle.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei in view of Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Song et al. KR-20190042299-A (PGPub US-20210083273-A1 as English translation, cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 10 (see rejection of Claim 10 above). Kouhei further discloses the silicon oxide may have a median particle diameter D50 (average particle diameter) of 0.5 to 20 μm (see paragraph [0030]), but is not sufficiently specific on the silicon oxide having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 1 μm to 10 μm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of silicon active materials in negative electrodes (see abstract), Song discloses a silicon oxide material mixed with graphite in a negative electrode active material layer having an average particle diameter D50 of 5 μm (see paragraph [0060]). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the silicon oxide having a median particle diameter D50 ranging from 1 μm to 10 μm.
Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize a silicon oxide particle of this diameter meets the criteria of the silicon oxide particle of Kouhei and therefore would be an appropriate material to use in the negative electrode plate of Kouhei. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate of Kouhei and Lee wherein the silicon oxide has a median particle diameter D50 that falls in the range of 1 μm to 10 μm, as disclosed by Song, as it is an appropriate material to use in a negative electrode active material layer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouhei in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. US-20130040203-A1 (hereinafter “Yoon”)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kouhei discloses the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Kouhei is silent on a surface of the second graphite being coated with hard carbon, and a hard carbon coating having a thickness ranging from 5 nm to 20 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of graphite active materials in negative electrodes (see abstract), Yoon discloses coating graphite with a coating comprising hard carbon, the coating having a thickness of a couple nm to 50 nm in Figs. 2 and 3 (see paragraphs [0021] and [0028]-[0029]), which substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the second graphite being coated with hard carbon, and a hard carbon coating having a thickness ranging from 5 nm to 20 nm.
Yoon additionally discloses the hard carbon coating increases the surface area of the graphite powder to achieve a better cycle performance (see paragraph [0028]), and a skilled artisan would understand an appropriate thickness/uniform coating would help achieve an appropriate surface area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the negative electrode plate disclosed by Kouhei and Lee wherein a surface of the second graphite is coated with hard carbon, and a hard carbon coating has a thickness ranging from 5 nm to 20 nm, as disclosed by Yoon, in order to increase the surface area of the graphite powder to achieve a better cycle performance.
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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 Ruddock 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729