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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata et al, US 20130252111 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Matsumoto et al, WO 2021044482 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20220293942 A1 for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahata teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Takahata, 1; figure 1) including an electrode body (Takahata, 10; figure 1) with a positive electrode sheet (Takahata, 30; figure 1), a negative electrode sheet (Takahata, 20; figure 1) and a separator (Takahata, 40; figure 1) [Takahata, 0062], wherein the separator is impregnated with a non-aqueous electrolyte, which is comprised of a lithium salt and a mix of organic solvents, indicating the electrolyte is a solution [Takahata, 0065]. The electrode body is accommodated in a battery case (Takahata, 80; figure 1), including a case body (Takahata, 81; figure 1) [Takahata, 0062], wherein an electrolyte is supplied in the case body through a port not shown [Takahata, 0110]. The negative electrode sheet includes a negative electrode current collector, corresponding to the negative electrode core body of the claim, and a negative electrode active material layer formed on a negative electrode current collector [Takahata, 0012].
However, Takahata is silent to teach on the negative electrode active material layer comprising a Log differential pore volume, obtained by a mercury intrusion method, with a first peak and a second peak with a larger pore diameter than the first peak in a range where a pore diameter is 0.50 μm or more and 6.00 μm or less, and a pore volume of pores corresponding to the first peak is 6 mL/g or more.
Matsumoto teaches a negative electrode material for a lithium secondary battery comprising composite particles, wherein the composite particles have a log differential pore volume distribution, obtained by the mercury intrusion method, with at least two peaks in a pore diameter range of 0.10 μm to 8.00 μm, wherein the at least two peaks include a first peak, P1, and a second peak, P2, at a higher diameter than the first peak, P1 [Matsumoto, 0054].
Matsumoto and Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the secondary battery of Takahata to include the negative electrode material of Matsumoto comprising the composite particles with the pore diameter range of P1 and P2, because such modification would result in a lithium ion secondary battery with an excellent liquid permeation property [Matsumoto, 0058].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
The limitation “by a mercury intrusion method” is a product-by-process limitation, and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach a pore volume of pores corresponding to the first peak is 6 mL/g or more, Matsumoto teaches a cumulative pore volume in the range of a pore diameter is from 0.10 μm to 8.00 μm is from 0.20 to 1.00 mL/g [Matsumoto, 0092], wherein the pore volume in the composite particle can be adjusted by adjusting the blending ratio of the composite particles, because to obtain an electrolytic solution that can move inside the negative electrode in a more favorable manner [Matsumoto, 0094], the pore volume can be optimized to obtain favorable rapid charge/discharge characteristics, easily control the viscosity of the negative electrode material, and maintain a favorable adhesion of the negative electrode material [Matsumoto, 0093]. In view of the teachings of modified Takahata, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to optimize the pore volume of the pores corresponding to the first peak to be 6 mL/g or more, as modified Takahata teaches a cumulative pore volume from 0.20 to 1.00 mL/g [Matsumoto, 0092] that can be adjusted, and is a result-effective variable, where adjusting the pore volume can obtain favorable rapid charge/discharge characteristics, easily control the viscosity of the negative electrode material, and maintain a favorable adhesion of the negative electrode material [Matsumoto, 0093]. According to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the electrode body (Takahata, 10; figure 1) has a wound form configured such that the strip-shaped positive electrode(Takahata, 30; figure 1) and negative electrode (Takahata, 20; figure 1) sheets are wound in a flat form interposing therebetween the strip-shaped separators (Takahata, 40; figure 1) [Takahata, 0064], as shown in figure 1 of Takahata. However, modified Takahata is silent to teach on the width of the positive electrode being 20 cm or more in a winding axis direction.
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach the width of the positive electrode being 20 cm or more in a winding axis direction, Takahata teaches the positive electrode sheet (Takahata, 30; figure 1) includes a strip-shaped aluminum foil, not shown, and two strip-shaped positive active material layers, not shown, placed on either side of the aluminum foil [Takahata, 0066], wherein the positive electrode sheet is produced by mixing the positive electrode active particles together with a conductive material, binding material and solvent, which creates a paste that is coated, then dried and pressed [Takahata, 0110] afterwhich the positive electrode sheet and negative electrode sheet are wound together and accommodated into the case body, therefore, the width of the positive electrode is subjective to the needs of the invention, and would therefore, be obvious to optimize the width of the positive electrode in the winding axis direction to be 20 cm or more, depending on the needs of the invention. According to MPEP 2144.04, [i]n Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the width of the positive electrode in the winding direction to be 20 cm or more.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach on an intensity of A at the first peak and an intensity of B at the second peak satisfy A/B = 0.5 to 1.5.
Matsumoto teaches the ratio of the peak intensities of the first peak and the second peak, P1/P2, is preferably less than 4.0 [Matsumoto, 0104].
Matsumoto and Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the ratio of peak intensities as taught by Matsumoto because such modification would further improve the liquid permeation property [Matsumoto, 0104].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, but is silent to teach wherein an intensity B at the second peak is larger than an intensity A at the first peak.
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach the intensity B at the second peak being larger than an intensity A at the first peak, Matsumoto teaches the ratio of the peak intensities of the first peak, P1, and the second peak, P2, P1/P2, is less than 4.0 and the ratio of the peak intensity is calculated as a peak ratio in a log differential pore volume distribution [Matsumoto, 0104], and the second peak, P2, has a higher diameter than the first peak [Matsumoto, 0106], and by optimizing the peak intensities, the liquid permeation property can be improved, by increasing the surface area for intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions, therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the intensity of second peak, P2, to be greater than the intensity of the first peak, P1. There are a finite number of identified predictable solutions for the intensity of B at the second peak, such that the intensity is larger than an intensity A at the first peak, or such that it is not. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified predictable solutions disclosed above, wherein the intensity of B at the second peak is larger than an intensity A at the first peak, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See MPEP 2143 (E).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein at least two peaks appear in the range of the pore diameter from 0.10 to 8.00 μm [Matsumoto, 0058]. However, modified Takahata is silent to teach on a third peak, in a range where the pore diameter is 0.10 μm or more and 0.50 μm or less and the third peak has a smaller pore diameter than the first peak.
Matsumoto teaches that three or more peaks may appear in the foregoing pore diameter range, indicating additional peaks than those identified as the first peak, P1, and the second peak, P2 [Matsumoto, 0097]. Annotated figure 1B, Example 2, of Matsumoto below appears to teach a third peak, that is depicted within a pore diameter range of 0.10 μm or more and 0.50 μm or less, and would therefore, have a smaller pore diameter than the first peak.
PNG
media_image1.png
429
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto and Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the third peak as taught by Matsumoto and depicted in figure 1B because such modification would result in an improved liquid permeation property [Matsumoto, 0058].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
The limitation “by the mercury intrusion method” is a product-by-process limitation, and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein at least two peaks appear in the range of the pore diameter from 0.10 to 8.00 μm [Matsumoto, 0058], but
three or more peaks may appear in the foregoing pore diameter range, indicating additional peaks than those identified as the first peak, P1, and the second peak, P2 [Matsumoto, 0097]. However, modified Takahata is silent to teach a fourth peak with a larger pore diameter than the second peak in the range where the pore diameter is 0.50 μm or more and 6.00 μm or less.
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach a fourth peak, wherein the pore diameter is between 0.50 μm and 6.00 μm, Matsumoto teaches at least two peaks appear in the range of the pore diameter from 0.10 to 8.00 μm [Matsumoto, 0058] and that three or more peaks may appear in the foregoing pore diameter range, indicating additional peaks than those identified as the first peak, P1, and the second peak, P2 [Matsumoto, 0097]. Further, modified Takahata teaches the negative electrode active material is formed of two layers, a first layer, L1, contains particles made of natural graphite and a second layer, L2, that contains particles made of a carbonized coke [Takahata, 0068], wherein Matsumoto teaches the composite particles include a spherical and flat graphite particles [Matsumoto, 0007], wherein flat graphite particles include artificial graphite, natural graphite, or coke form soft particles. According to the instant specification, the lower layer of the negative electrode, L1, preferably includes first graphite particles, G1 [instant specification, 0034], and the upper layer of the negative electrode, L2, preferably includes a second graphite that is different from the first in shape, average particle diameter, tap density or the like [instant specification, 0039]. According to MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Therefore, it would be obvious for modified Takahata to comprise a fourth peak with a larger pore diameter than the second peak in the range where the pore diameter is 0.50 μm or more and 6.00 μm or less.
The limitation “by the mercury intrusion method” is a product-by-process limitation, and according to MPEP 2113, "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Takahata teaches the secondary batter of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material layer (Takahata, 21; figure 3) is formed of two layers, a first layer, L1, corresponding to the lower layer of the claim, and a second layer, L2, corresponding to the upper layer of the claim. The first layer is formed as a lower layer located on a side closer to the copper foil (Takahata, 28; figure 3), corresponding to the negative electrode core body of the claim, and the second layer is formed as an upper layer located on a side close to the outer surface [Takahata, 0068]. The first layer contains particles made of natural graphite and the second layer contains particles made of carbonized coke/amorphous carbon [Takahata, 0069]. However, modified Takahata is silent to teach on the pore corresponding to the first peak exist in the negative electrode lower layer or the pores corresponding to the second peak exist in the negative electrode upper layer.
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach the pore corresponding to the first peak exist in the negative electrode lower layer or the pores corresponding to the second peak exist in the negative electrode upper layer, modified Takahata teaches the negative electrode active material is formed of two layers, a first layer, L1, contains particles made of natural graphite and a second layer, L2, that contains particles made of a carbonized coke [Takahata, 0068], wherein Matsumoto teaches the composite particles include a spherical and flat graphite particles [Matsumoto, 0007], wherein flat graphite particles include artificial graphite, natural graphite, or coke form soft particles, further Matsumoto teaches the negative electrode active material include a composite particle with at least two peaks that appear in a range of pore diameter from 0.10 μm to 8.00 μm [Matsumoto, 0010]. According to the instant specification, the lower layer of the negative electrode, L1, preferably includes first graphite particles, G1 [instant specification, 0034], and the upper layer of the negative electrode, L2, preferably includes a second graphite that is different from the first in shape, average particle diameter, tap density or the like [instant specification, 0039], wherein the negative electrode active material has a first peak, P1, and a second peak, P2, which exists in a range of 0.50 μm to 6.00 μm. According to MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Therefore, it would be obvious for the pore corresponding to the first peak exist in the negative electrode lower layer or the pores corresponding to the second peak exist in the negative electrode upper layer.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the negative electrode active material first layer, corresponding to the lower layer of the claim, has a density of 1.2 to 1.6 g/cm3, this range indicates the layer has been appropriately pressed [Takahata, 0019], or packed. The second layer, corresponding to the upper layer of the claim, has a density of 1.2 g/cm3 or less [Takahata, 0024], therefore, meeting the claimed requirement of the lower layer having a higher packing density than the upper layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata et al, US 20130252111 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Matsumoto et al, WO 2021044482 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20220293942 A1 for citation) as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Sakauchi et al, JP 2009193924 A (as cited in IDS and English translation provided for citation).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 7, but is silent to teach on the ratio thickness of the negative electrode lower layer to a thickness of the negative electrode upper layer being 1.09 to 1.18.
Sakauchi teaches a lithium ion-secondary battery comprising a two layer negative electrode [Sakauchi, 0021], wherein the first layer, corresponding to the lower layer of the claim, is primarily a graphite material, and the second layer, corresponding to the upper layer of the claim, is primarily amorphous carbon [Sakauchi, 0022]. The thickness of one layer containing the graphite material, the first layer, is in the range of 20 to 100 μm [Sakauchi, 0048] and the thickness of one layer containing an amorphous carbon material was in the range of 20 to 100 μm [Sakauchi, 0049], therefore the thickness ratio of the first layer, the lower layer, to the second layer, the upper layer, is between 0.2 to 5.
Sakauchi and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the thickness ratio taught by Sakauchi because such modification would improve the rate of electrode transfer between the materials constituting each of the two negative electrode composite layers [Sakauchi, 0021].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata et al, US 20130252111 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Matsumoto et al, WO 2021044482 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20220293942 A1 for citation) as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Takahata, Koji, US 20140186702 A1 (as cited in IDS) known as “Koji” for this examination.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the first layer, L1, corresponding to the lower layer of the claim, contains particles made of natural graphite [Takahata, 0069], but is silent to teach on an average particle diameter, D50, of the second graphite particles is larger than an average particle diameter, D50, of the first graphite particles.
Matsumoto teaches the average particle size, D50, of the spherical graphite particles, corresponding to the first graphite particles of the claim, may be from 5 to 40 μm [Matsumoto, 0071], and the average particle size, D50, of the flat graphite particles, corresponding to the second graphite particles of the claim, may be 50 μm or less [Matsumoto, 0067], therefore, meeting the claimed requirement of the average particle diameter of the second graphite particles is larger than an average particle diameter of the first graphite particles.
Matsumoto and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the average particle diameters as taught by Matsumoto because such modification would result in material with an improved initial charge-discharge efficiency [Matsumoto, 0068].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Modified Takahata is silent to teach on the mass of the first graphite particles is 80 mass% or more to a total mass of the negative electrode active material included in the negative electrode lower layer, the negative electrode upper layer includes the first graphite particles and second graphite particles, a mixing ratio between the first graphite particles and the second graphite particles included in the negative electrode upper layer is 8:2 to 6:4 in mass ratio.
Koji teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery [Koji, 0010], wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a first region neighboring the negative electrode current collector, corresponding to the lower layer of the claim, and a second region neighboring a surface [Koji, 0011], corresponding to the upper layer of the claim, and the first region contains natural graphite in a weight ratio of equal or greater than 80% of the graphite material [Koji, 0011]. The negative electrode active material is made by mixing a first paste comprising the first graphite particles and a second paste comprising the second graphite particles, wherein the second paste is coated over the first paste [Koji, 0070], and it is stated the first and second paste may be slightly mixed with each other [Koji, 0072], indicating the second paste, which is added on after the first paste, which corresponds to the negative electrode upper layer of the claim, may include the graphite particles from the first paste and the graphite particles from the second paste.
Koji and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the mass of the first graphite particles as taught by Koji because such modification would result in a lithium-ion secondary battery with an improved capacity retention ratio after long-term storage and increased resistance [Koji, 0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the mix of first and second graphite particles in the upper layer as taught by Koji because such modification would maintain a high level capacity retention ratio after long term storage and the resistance increase after charge-discharge in a low temperature environment can be kept small [Koji, 0073].
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach the mixing ratio between the first and second graphite particles included in the negative electrode upper layer to be 8:2 to 6:4 in a mass ratio, Koji teaches a desirable ratio thickness of the first region in which the first paste is coated to the thickness of the second region is about 9:1, for example, stating an embodiment teaches about 90% of the negative electrode active material uses natural graphite as a negative electrode active material and the remaining 10% is an artificial graphite [Koji, 0073], however the specific ratio of the first and secondary particles within the second region, corresponding to the upper layer of the claim, is not specifically stated. Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the mixing ratio between the first and second graphite particles to be between 8:2 and 6:4 in a mass ratio, because by adjusting the mixing ratio between the first and second graphite particles one can optimize the capacity retention ratio after long term storage can be maintained at a high level and the resistance after charge-discharge cycling [Koji, 0073]. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata et al, US 20130252111 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Matsumoto et al, WO 2021044482 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20220293942 A1 for citation) and Takahata, Koji, US 20140186702 A1 (as cited in IDS) known as “Koji” for this examination, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Choi et al, US 20210265630 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Takahata teaches the secondary batter of claim 10, but is silent to teach on the first graphite particles having a higher tap density than the second graphite particles.
Choi teaches a negative electrode active material using a mix of natural graphite, corresponding to the first graphite particles of the claim, and artificial graphite particles [Choi, 0014], corresponding to the second graphite particles of the claim. The tap density of the natural graphite is between 1.10 to 1.25 g/cc [Choi, 0021], and the tap density for the artificial graphite is between 0.80 to 1.00 g/cc [Choi, 0054], showing the first graphite particles have a higher tap density than the second graphite particles.
Choi and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the tap densities as taught by Choi, wherein the tap density for the first graphite particle is higher than the tap density of the second graphite particle, because such modification would maintain the contact area between the particles and the adhesive properties, while also maintaining the output characteristics during charging/discharging and not reducing the initial efficiency nor the deterioration of high temperature properties [Choi, 0047 & 0054].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahata et al, US 20130252111 A1 (as cited in IDS) and Matsumoto et al, WO 2021044482 A1 (as cited in IDS and referencing US 20220293942 A1 for citation) and Takahata, Koji, US 20140186702 A1 (as cited in IDS) known as “Koji” for this examination, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of in further view of Choi et al, US 20210265630 A1 and Lee et al, KR 20210002402 A (referencing US 20240055604 A1 for citation).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, but is silent to teach on the particle size distribution width of the first graphite particle is larger than a particle size distribution of the second graphite particle, wherein the particle size distribution width refers to a value expressed by (D90-D10)/D50, in which D10, D50 and D90 represent particle diameters at which cumulative values corresponds to 10%, 50%, and 90%, respectively in a particle size distribution.
Choi teaches D90 is a particle size in which accumulation become 90% from the smallest particle in order of the particle diameter, D10 is a particle diameter in which the accumulation become 10% from the smallest particle in the particle size order, and D50 is a particle size in which the accumulation before 10% from the smallest particle in the order of the particle size [Choi, 0041].
Choi and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the D10, D50, and D90 definitions, because by such modification keeps the electrode active layer within a good thickness so it is not difficult to implement higher energy density [Choi, 0041].
However, Choi is silent to teach on the particle size distribution width of the first graphite particle being larger than the particle size distribution width of the second graphite particle.
Lee teaches a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Lee, 0018], wherein the particle size SPAN, which is identified as (D90-D10)/D50, as shown in table 1 [Lee, 0093]. Table 1 of Lee shows six categories, wherein categories 1 and 2 are natural graphite, the first graphite particle, and categories 3-6 are artificial graphite, the second graphite particle, and the table shows the natural graphite had SPAN values between 1.90 and 1.93, whereas the artificial graphite had SPAN values between 1.61 and 1.80 [Lee, 0097], showing the first graphite particle has a larger particle size width distribution than the second graphite particle.
Lee and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the SPAN values, wherein the first graphite particle has a larger particle size width distribution than the second graphite particle, as taught by Lee because such modification would result in a battery with excellent adhesion.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, but is silent to teach on the tap density of first graphite particles being between 1.10 g/cm3 to 1.20 g/cm3 or the first graphite particles having a particle size distribution width of 3.73 to 4.87, wherein the particle size distribution width refers to a value expressed by (D90-D10)/D50, in which D10, D50 and D90 represent particle diameters at which cumulative values corresponds to 10%, 50%, and 90%, respectively in a particle size distribution.
Choi teaches the tap density of the natural graphite, corresponding to the first graphite particles of the claim, is between 1.10 to 1.25 g/cc [Choi, 0021], wherein D90 is a particle size in which accumulation become 90% from the smallest particle in order of the particle diameter, D10 is a particle diameter in which the accumulation become 10% from the smallest particle in the particle size order, and D50 is a particle size in which the accumulation before 10% from the smallest particle in the order of the particle size [Choi, 0041].
Choi and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the tap densitys as taught by Choi, because such modification would maintain the contact area between the particles and the adhesive properties, while also maintaining the output characteristics during charging/discharging and not reducing the initial efficiency nor the deterioration of high temperature properties [Choi, 0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the D10, D50, and D90 definitions, because by such modification keeps the electrode active layer within a good thickness so it is not difficult to implement higher energy density [Choi, 0041].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
While modified Takahata does not explicitly teach wherein the first graphite particles has a particle size distribution width of 3.73 to 4.87, Lee teaches the SPAN of a negative electrode material is expressed by (D90-D10)/D50 [Lee, 0093] and table 1 of Lee shows the SPAN of natural graphite, corresponding to the first graphite particle of the claim, to be between 1.90 and 1.93 [Lee, 0097], but it would be obvious to optimize the SPAN of the first graphite particle to be between 3.73 and 4.87 because by optimizing the SPAN of the first graphite particles, it is possible to maintain a uniform particle size distribution of the natural graphite, and improve the performance degradation that occurs when using natural graphite [Choi, 0041]. Moreover , according to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Takahata teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, but is silent to teach on the tap density of second graphite particles being between 0.93 g/cm3 to 1.20 g/cm3 or the second graphite particles having a particle size distribution width of 0.90 to 3.59, wherein the particle size distribution width refers to a value expressed by (D90-D10)/D50, in which D10, D50 and D90 represent particle diameters at which cumulative values corresponds to 10%, 50%, and 90%, respectively in a particle size distribution.
Choi teaches the tap density of the artificial graphite, corresponding to the second graphite particles of the claim, is between 0.80 to 1.00 g/cc [Choi, 0054], wherein D90 is a particle size in which accumulation become 90% from the smallest particle in order of the particle diameter, D10 is a particle diameter in which the accumulation become 10% from the smallest particle in the particle size order, and D50 is a particle size in which the accumulation before 10% from the smallest particle in the order of the particle size [Choi, 0041].
Choi and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the tap density as taught by Choi, because such modification would maintain the contact area between the particles and the adhesive properties, while also maintaining the output characteristics during charging/discharging and not reducing the initial efficiency nor the deterioration of high temperature properties [Choi, 0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the D10, D50, and D90 definitions, because by such modification keeps the electrode active layer within a good thickness so it is not difficult to implement higher energy density [Choi, 0041].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Lee teaches the SPAN of a negative electrode material is expressed by (D90-D10)/D50 [Lee, 0093], wherein the particle size SPAN of the artificial graphite, corresponding to the second graphite particle of the claim, is between 0.7 to 2.5 [Lee, 0028].
Lee and modified Takahata are considered analogous arts in the area of batteries and power storage devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Takahata to include the SPAN of the artificial graphite as taught by Lee because such modification would result in a secondary battery with excellent electrode adhesion [Lee, 0038].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lieinside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim,541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722