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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the core part comprising an anode material” should read “wherein the core part comprises an anode material”. 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 3-4, 7, 9, and 11 are 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.
The term “about” in claims 3-4, 7, 9, and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of “about” makes the makes the range of included values in the claimed limitations unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses an anode comprising: an anode active material comprising a core part and a coating layer (paragraphs 0048-0052), and a binder (paragraph 0081), wherein the core part comprises an anode material (paragraphs 0009-0011, 0048), wherein the coating layer is configured to coat at least a part of a surface of each of the core part (paragraphs 0014-0015); and wherein the coating layer comprises a polymer comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 2, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses that the anode material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si) and germanium (Ge) (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses that the polymer has a dielectric constant of equal to or greater than about 5 (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 5, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses that the coating layer satisfies Binder Content × 0.1 ≤ Coating Layer Content ≤ Binder Content × 65.5 (paragraphs 0090-0091, 0098). The active material is included in the anode in an amount 85 wt% according to the disclosed weight ratio (paragraph 0098), and the active material includes the coating layer materials (metal oxides, super-P carbon, and PVDF) in an amount of 3.6 parts out of 103.6 parts of the total active material (paragraphs 0090-0091). Therefore,
3.6
p
a
r
t
s
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
103.6
p
a
r
t
s
A
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
*
85
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
a
n
o
d
e
≈
2.95
p
a
r
t
s
of the total anode is the coating layer content. Since the binder is 7 wt% of the anode, 7 × 0.1 = 0.7 ≤ 2.95, and 7 × 65.5 = 458.5 ≥ 2.95, satisfying the claimed relation.
Regarding claim 6, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses that the binder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), and polyacrylonitrile (PAN) (paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 8, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses that he anode further comprises a conductive material (paragraphs 0076, 0098).
Regarding claim 10, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses a secondary battery comprising: a cathode; an anode; and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode (paragraph 0022).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) as evidenced by Puértolas et al. (Puértolas, J. A., García-García, J. F., Pascual, F. J., González-Domínguez, J. M., Martínez, M. T., & Ansón-Casaos, A. (2017). Dielectric behavior and electrical conductivity of PVDF filled with functionalized single-walled carbon nanotubes. Composites Science and Technology, 152, 263–274).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1. Hong further discloses that the polymer is PVDF (paragraph 0060). Puértolas discloses properties including electrical conductivity of single-walled carbon nanotube/PVDF composites as well as of neat PVDF (Puértolas section 3.4.1). Puértolas further discloses that the PVDF resin has an electrical conductivity of 10-11 to 10-8 S/m depending on the temperature (Puértolas section 3.4.1, within the claimed range of less than 10-6 S/cm). Hong teaches that the polymer is PVDF, which possesses the claimed conductivity as evidenced by Puértolas).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) in view of Hotta et al. (US 20200168913 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 1, comprising, based on 100 wt% of the anode: an amount of about 50 wt% to 99.8 wt% of the core part (paragraphs 0090-0091, 0098,
100
p
a
r
t
s
C
o
r
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
103.6
p
a
r
t
s
A
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
*
85
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
a
n
o
d
e
≈
82.05
p
a
r
t
s
, within the claimed range); and an amount of about 0.1 wt% to 49.9 wt% of the coating layer (paragraphs 0090-0091, 0098, 2.95%, see claim 5 rejection). Hong does not disclose an amount of about 0.1 wt% to 1.5 wt% of the binder.
Hotta discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material and an additive resin covering at least a portion of the active material particles (Hotta paragraphs 0025, 0071). Hotta further discloses that the binder is included in the negative electrode layer in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight, overlapping the claimed range (Hotta paragraph 0069). The reference teaches that the range provides sufficient electrode strength while decreasing an insulating portion of the electrode (Hotta paragraph 0069). Hotta and Hong are analogous because they both disclose negative electrodes with surface modified active material particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Hong to include the binder in the amount disclosed by Hotta. Doing so would provide sufficient electrode strength while decreasing an insulating portion of the electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 8. Hong is silent regarding an amount of about 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% of the conductive material based on 100 wt% of the anode.
Hotta discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material and an additive resin covering at least a portion of the active material particles (Hotta paragraphs 0025, 0071). Hotta further discloses that the conductive agent is included in the negative electrode layer in an amount of 1 to 20 parts by weight, overlapping the claimed range (Hotta paragraph 0069). The reference teaches that the range decreases decomposition of the electrolyte while improving conductivity (Hotta paragraph 0069). Hotta and Hong are analogous because they both disclose negative electrodes with surface modified active material particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Hong to include the binder in the amount disclosed by Hotta. Doing so would decrease decomposition of the electrolyte while improving conductivity. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 10. Hong is silent regarding a vehicle comprising the secondary battery.
Hotta discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode active material and an additive resin covering at least a portion of the active material particles (Hotta paragraphs 0025, 0071). Hotta further discloses a vehicle including the battery which includes the negative electrode (Hotta paragraph 0172). The reference teaches that vehicles are an application where excellent cycle performance is demanded when a large current is extracted, which the battery is used for (Hotta paragraph 0170). Hotta and Hong are analogous because they both disclose negative electrodes with surface modified active material particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Hong to be a part of an electric vehicle as disclosed by Hotta. Doing so would contribute to providing capable batteries for an application requiring excellent cycle performance. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.). The claim would have been obvious because design incentives or other market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation of a known device, and implementing the adaptation in a predictable manner results in the claimed invention. In this case, the design incentives to provide capable batteries to improve electric vehicles requiring excellent cycle performance and a large extraction of current leads one skilled in the art to the use of the battery disclosed by Hong to be used within an electric vehicle as disclosed by Hotta.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20160164078 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 20220123314 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses the limitations of claim 10. Hong is silent regarding wherein initial Coulombic efficiency of the secondary battery is equal to or greater than about 83%.
Liang discloses a battery comprising a negative electrode material comprising a core material and a polymer-modified coating layer on at least part of a surface of the core material (Liang paragraphs 0004-0005). Liang further discloses that the initial Coulombic efficiency of the battery is equal to 83% (Liang table 2, example 3). The reference teaches that the polymer modified coating and negative active material can reduce damage to the surface structure of the negative electrode active material during charging and discharging of the battery, reduce loss of active ions, and reduce capacity loss of the battery. Therefore, the present application can well improve the Coulombic efficiency and cycle performance of the battery (Liang paragraphs 0045-0047). Liang and Hong are analogous because they both disclose surface modified negative electrode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Hong to have the Coulombic efficiency disclosed by Liang. Doing so would improve capacity and cycle characteristics of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights