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 of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-16 are under examination.
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 7 and 10-16 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.
Claims 7 and 15 are not written and/or formatted in a manner that clearly expresses the scope of the claims. Claims 7 and 15 each recite:
“The [negative electrode plate/electrochemical apparatus] according to claim [6/14], wherein the negative electrode plate satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
the electrode active substance comprises at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, mesocarbon microbeads, silicon oxide, or pure silicon; and the binder comprises a water-soluble binder, wherein the water-soluble binder comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), styrene-acrylic polymer, or polyacrylate (PAA); and
based on the total mass of the negative electrode active substance layer, a mass percentage of the negative electrode active substance is 96.5% to 98.6%; and based on the total mass of the negative electrode active substance layer, a mass percentage of the binder is 0.6% to 2.5%.”
It is not clear whether Claims 7 and 15 each set forth two or four possible conditions for the negative electrode plate to satisfy. Applicant’s use of “; and” in the claim language indicates four separate and distinct properties:
the electrode active substance comprises at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, mesocarbon microbeads, silicon oxide, or pure silicon; and
the binder comprises a water-soluble binder, wherein the water-soluble binder comprises at least one of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), styrene-acrylic polymer, or polyacrylate (PAA); and
based on the total mass of the negative electrode active substance layer, a mass percentage of the negative electrode active substance is 96.5% to 98.6%; and
based on the total mass of the negative electrode active substance layer, a mass percentage of the binder is 0.6% to 2.5%
However, Applicant has not formatted the claim in a way that distinguishes these four conditions from each other. The current formatting of the claims suggests there are only two conditions, and each of those two conditions requires two different properties. Please revise Claims 7 and 15 to more clearly express whether there are two or four possible conditions for the negative electrode plate to satisfy.
For the purpose of this action, the claims will be examined as presenting four possible conditions for the negative electrode plate to satisfy. This decision is made based on Applicant’s recitation of “; and” after each condition in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-14 each recite “The electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the electrochemical apparatus” in the claims, as Claim 1 does not recite an electrochemical apparatus. Independent Claim 9 recites “an electrochemical apparatus,” and Examiner assumes Claims 10-14 were intended to rely upon Claim 9 instead of Claim 1. For the purpose of this action, Claims 10-14 will be examined as depending upon Claim 9.
Although Claims 15 and 16 do not recite ““The electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1,” they are also rejected, as they depend upon a rejected claim (Claim 14).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al., CN 111384370 A.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, discloses an electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery [0009-0011, 0068-0069]) comprising a negative electrode plate (lithium-ion battery anode [0011, 0063-0069]), the negative electrode plate comprising:
a current collector (current collector substrate [0037], copper foil [0067]); and
a negative electrode active substance layer disposed on the current collector (negative electrode slurry coated onto negative electrode current collector [0038, 0065-0068] Example 9 [0112]),
wherein the negative electrode active substance layer comprises lithium carboxymethyl cellulose (lithium carboxymethyl cellulose, “CMCLi” [0035], Example 9 [0112]), and
a porosity of the negative electrode plate is greater than or equal to 33% (porosity of the negative electrode is 35%-50% [0013, 0030], Example 9: electrode porosity is 42% [0112]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang discloses based on a total mass of the negative electrode active substance layer, a mass percentage of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose is 0.2% to 1% (Example 9: negative electrode slurry has 0.5% by mass of CMCLi [0112]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang discloses the negative electrode active substance layer further comprises a negative electrode active substance (surface-modified silicon particles [0015-0023], Example 9 [0112]) and
a binder ([0035], Example 9: polystyrene-acrylic acid copolymer and polyvinyl alcohol [0112]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang discloses the negative electrode active substance comprises at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, mesocarbon microbeads, silicon oxide, or pure silicon (silicon particles [0015, 0072], carbon [0023], Example 9: amorphous porous silicon particles coated in carbon [0112]).
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.
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Onomichi et al., JP 2011090935 A.
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang does not disclose “a degree of substitution of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose is 0.4 to 0.6.” However, this limitation is taught by Onomichi.
Onomichi teaches a negative electrode slurry applied to a current collector, wherein the slurry includes a lithium salt form of carboxymethyl cellulose “CMC” as an adhesion improver ([0019-0029]). Onomichi teaches a degree of substitution for CMC can be in a range of 0.25 to 0.6, and teaches a most preferable range of 0.4 to 0.45 for optimal handleability, electrode slurry coating, and electrode slurry adhesion ([0024]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a degree of substitution of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose within the claimed range, for the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose of Wang, as Onomichi teaches improved handleability, electrode slurry coating, and electrode slurry adhesion are achieved within the claimed range.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al., KR 20130138523 A.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang does not disclose “a viscosity of an aqueous solution containing the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose at a mass percentage of 1% is 20,000 cP to 50,000 cP.” However, this limitation is taught by Kim.
Kim teaches a negative electrode comprising a copper current collector and an aqueous solution (negative electrode mixture layer [0067]). Kim teaches the negative electrode mixture comprises 1 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose, and a viscosity of the mixture is “adjusted to about 20,000 cp, which is a viscosity easy to apply to the copper thin film” ([0067]). Examiner notes Wang’s negative electrode slurry is also applied to a copper foil current collector (Wang, [0037, 0067]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a viscosity of an aqueous solution containing the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose at a mass percentage of 1% be 20,000 cP, in the negative electrode plate of Wang, and would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Kim teaches an electrode mixture having a viscosity of 20,000 cP can be easily applied to a copper current collector.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claims 3, 8, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Jeong et al., US 20170309896 A1.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang does not disclose “a number-average molecular weight of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose is 50 x104 to 100 x104.” However, this limitation is taught by Jeong.
Jeong teaches a negative electrode mix comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose lithium salt (“CMC—Li salt” [0011-0013]), wherein the CMC—Li salt may have a number average molecular weight of 70×104 to 500×104 ([0020]). Jeong teaches when the number average molecular weight of CMC—Li is lower than the cited range, a large amount of thickening agent is used to compensate for a low viscosity, and when the number average molecular weight exceeds the cited range, viscosity becomes difficult to control and improvement of rapid charging characteristics may be insufficient ([0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a number average molecular weight within the claimed range, for the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose of Wang, as Jeong teaches viscosity and charging characteristics are favorable within a broader range of 70×104 to 500×104 .
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wang does not disclose “a coating weight of the negative electrode active substance layer is 5.2 mg/cm2 to 11.7 mg/cm2.” However, this limitation is also taught by Jeong.
Jeong teaches a negative electrode mix comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose lithium salt (“CMC—Li salt” [0011-0013]). Jeong teaches a high enough coating weight of the negative electrode mix is needed to increase the energy density of the battery, but too high of a coating weight will result in poor rapid-charging characteristics ([0006-0008, 0016]). Jeong teaches a preferred coating weight range is 8 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 (converted from Jeong’s “200 mg/25 cm2 to 500 mg/25 cm2 ” range [0016-0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a coating weight within the claimed range, in the negative electrode active substance layer of Wang, as Jeong teaches an overlapping coating weight range will increase energy density of the battery, while not sacrificing rapid-charging performance.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sakajiri et al., US 20220020993 A1 and Adden et al., US 20130012696 A1.
Sakajiri teaches a negative electrode active material layer comprising a silicon-based active material and a carboxymethylcellulose or a metal salt thereof [0023, 0064, 0070-0075]). Sakajiri teaches it is important that the carboxymethylcellulose or metal salt thereof has a degree of substitution of 0.5 to 1.1 ([0028-0031, 0040]).
Adden teaches a carboxymethylcellulose “CMC” comprising a monovalent cation, wherein the CMC has a high viscosity but a relatively low degree of substitution compared to the state of the art ([0004-0012, 0022]). Adden teaches the CMC has a degree of substitution between 0.2 to 0.6 ([0021-0022]), and in an aqueous solution at 1 weight %, the solution has a viscosity within the range of 400 cP to 30,000 cP ([0021-0029]; 1 mPa·s = 1cP). Adden teaches the CMC having a low degree of substitution and high viscosity is less costly to manufacture compared to CMCs having a similar viscosity but a higher degree of substitution ([0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721