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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0017] line 17, “non-electrolytic solution” should be “non-aqueous electrolytic solution”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11,12, 14, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pestana et al. (US 10673062 B1).
As to claims 1-3, Pestana et al. discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode (cathode 105);
a negative electrode (anode 101);
a separator (103) present between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (figure 1); and
an electrolytic solution (col. 2 lines 45-47),
wherein the negative electrode contains silicon or a silicon compound (col. 3 lines 19-21) and a binder (col. 5 lines 45-46),
the binder contains polyimide (col. 2 lines 50).
However Pestana et al. is silent on the following property:
when the negative electrode after discharging is observed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy using a single-pulse magic-angle spinning method (SP- MAS method) and peaks are separated by a Gaussian function, a Lorentzian function or a Voigt function, an NMR spectrum of a solid7 Li nucleus has a first peak, and the first peak has a peak top in a chemical shift range of 0.5 ppm or more and 1.5 ppm or less with Li in LiCoO2 set to -0.5 ppm (for claim 1)
wherein the NMR spectrum of the solid7 Li nucleus further has a second peak, and the second peak has a peak top at a chemical shift position of 1.6 ppm or more and 3.2 ppm or less with Li in LiCoO2 set to -0.5 ppm (for claim 2).
when the negative electrode after charging and after discharging is observed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy using a cross-polarization magic-angle spinning method (CP-MAS method), MAS NMR spectra of a solid3C nucleus have a third peak, and
the third peak has a peak top in a chemical shift range of 100 ppm or more and 170 ppm or less with a high magnetic field-side peak of an NMR spectrum of hexamethyl benzene set to 16.81 ppm (for claim 3).
However, Pestana et al. discloses the method of making the anode is done by the steps of mixing graphene/carbon fibers (the carbon material) with NMP (solvent); followed by the application of Supper P (carbon material) and mixing (sonication); followed by silicon power is mixed with polemic acid and resin and then ball miller for a designated time, and then the conjugated carbon/NMP slurry may be added and dispersed at, e.g., 1800-2200 rpm for, e.g., another predefined time to achieve a slurry viscosity within 2000-4000 cP and a total solid content of about 30%. Followed by the slurry being coated onto the current collector and dried (col. 5, lines 52-col. 6 lines 12, col. 6 lines 15-20).
The applicant also mixes the NMP, and Polyimide material were mixed then a conductive assistant and a dispersion stabilizer were added and mixed followed by the addition of the silicon material and then coated on a current collector and dried and pressurized with a roll pressed [0063-70]
As the steps are similar, it is expected that the property of the NMR spectrum of a solid7 Li nucleus has a first peak, and the first peak has a peak top in a chemical shift range of 0.5 ppm or more and 1.5 ppm or less with Li in LiCoO2 set to -0.5 ppm;
wherein the NMR spectrum of the solid7 Li nucleus further has a second peak, and the second peak has a peak top at a chemical shift position of 1.6 ppm or more and 3.2 ppm or less with Li in LiCoO2 set to -0.5 ppm (for claim 2)
when the negative electrode after charging and after discharging is observed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy using a cross-polarization magic-angle spinning method (CP-MAS method), MAS NMR spectra of a solid3C nucleus have a third peak, and the third peak has a peak top in a chemical shift range of 100 ppm or more and 170 ppm or less with a high magnetic field-side peak of an NMR spectrum of hexamethyl benzene set to 16.81 ppm (for claim 3) is the same.
It is deemed that the NMP spectroscopy of the anode is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed positive active material. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
• Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
• When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
• “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 11, Pestana et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the negative electrode contains a negative electrode current collector (107A) and a negative electrode active material layer (101) comprising a negative electrode active material and the binder, and the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon or the silicon compound (col. 6 lines 46-50).
As to claim 12. Pestana et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 11, wherein an amount of the silicon or the silicon compound is 50 mass% or more relative to a total amount of the negative electrode active material (col. 3 lines 19-21).
As to claim 14. Pestana et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 11, wherein the negative electrode active material is a composite body of the silicon or the silicon compound in which at least some of surfaces of particles of the silicon or the silicon compound are coated with a conductive material (figure 4 the silicon particles are coated with the carbonized binder/ carbon)
As to claim 15. Pestana et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 11, wherein the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a conductive assistant and a dispersion stabilizer (col. 5, lines 50-56).
As to claim 17. Pestana et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 15, wherein the conductive assistant comprises one of a carbon nanotubes, a carbon material (col. 3 lines 61-66).
As to claim 20. Pestana et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 11, wherein the polyimide is uniformly dispersed in the negative electrode active material layer. (col. 51-56- the binder of PI is dispersed in NMP and sonicated thus is uniformly dispersed)
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pestana et al. (US 10673062 B1) in view of Iwasaki (US 2015/0155563 A1).
As to claim 4-9, Pestana et al. discloses a binder as polyimide but does not disclose the specifics of the polyimide as it being an aromatic polyimide (applies to claims 4-6);
or wherein the polyimide is a polymer of an acid anhydride and a diamine compound, and both the acid anhydride and the diamine compound each have an aromatic ring (applies to claim 7); or
wherein the polyimide includes a cyclic imide structure and an aromatic compound in a repeating unit of the polyimide (applies to claim 8); or
the cyclic imide structure contains pentacyclic imide (applies to claim 9).
Iwasaki discloses a lithium secondary battery and where the electrode is made of an active material and carbon and a binder. The binder can be polyimide and more specifically KAPTON which has the formula of (which is that of chemical formula 2 of the instant application) [0032]
PNG
media_image1.png
138
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, both are known binders for electrodes.
Thus addressing the limitations of
polyimide as it being an aromatic polyimide (see structure of KAPTON above having aromatic structure) (applies to claims 4-6);
wherein the polyimide is a polymer of an acid anhydride and a diamine compound, and both the acid anhydride and the diamine compound each have an aromatic ring (applies to claim 7) [0032 or 0029];
wherein the polyimide includes a cyclic imide structure and an aromatic compound in a repeating unit of the polyimide (applies to claim 8) (see structure above); or
the cyclic imide structure contains pentacyclic imide (see structure above)(applies to claim 9).
Claim(s) 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pestana et al. (US 10673062 B1) in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 2013/0078516).
As to claim 10, Pestana et al. discloses a silicon based active material but does not disclose that it is a silicon alloy or a silicon oxide.
Taniguchi et al. discloses a lithium battery and teaches the negative electrode active material can be silicon, silicon oxide or silicon alloy [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, the silicon and silicon oxide are both known anode active materials.
As to claim 13, Pestana et al. discloses the silicon based active material but does not disclose the BET of the material as 0.5 m2/g or more and 100 m2/g or less.
Taniguchi et al. discloses a lithium battery and teaches the negative electrode active material can be silicon, silicon oxide or silicon alloy [0027] and teaches a BET specific surface of particles having a structure where silicon nano particles are dispersed in silicon oxide is desirable to be 0.5 to 100 m2/g and more desirable to be 1 to 20 m2/g. [0042]. Further teaches When a BET specific surface area is set to 0.5 m2/g or more, there is no fear that the adhesiveness when coated on an electrode deteriorates to deteriorate the battery characteristics. When a BET specific surface area is set to 100 m2/g or less, there is no fear that a ratio of silicon oxide on a particle surface becomes large to deteriorate the battery capacity when used as a negative electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the BET from 0.5-100 because this there is no fear that a ratio of silicon oxide on a particle surface becomes large to deteriorate the battery capacity when used as a negative electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pestana et al. (US 10673062 B1) in view of Venkatachalam et al. (US 2019/0207209 A1)
As to claim 16. Pestana discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 15, but does not disclose the amount of binder as is instantly claimed.
Venkatachalam et al. discloses a lithium battery with silicon active material for the negative electrode. Venkatachalam further teaches the binder is added in an amount of 6-20 wt. percent with respect to a total mass of the negative electrode active material, the conductive assistant and the binder [0081]. Venkatachalam et al. further discloses the composition can lead to a battery with stabilize the cycling, it has been discovered that specific features of the anode (negative electrode) design can be appropriately considered to achieve surprisingly improved cycling performance [0045].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the composition of the electrode with having 6-20 wt. percent binder because this would lead to stabilize the cycling of a battery. Furthermore this is a known amount of binder to be added as Venkatachalam further teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that additional ranges of polymer properties within the explicit ranges above are contemplated and are within the present disclosure [0081]
As to claim 18. Pestana discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 15, but is silent to a content rate of the conductive assistant relative to a total mass of the negative electrode active material, the conductive assistant, and the binder is 5 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less, and a BET specific surface area of the conductive assistant is 100 m2/g or more and 200 m2/g or less.
Venkatachalam et al. discloses a lithium battery with silicon active material for the negative electrode. Venkatachalam further teaches the negative electrode has from about 75 to about 92 wt. % of negative electrode active material, negative electrode has from about 6 to about 20 wt. % polymeric binder and the negative electrode comprises from about 1 to about 7 wt. % nanoscale conductive carbon [0082], the conductive material can be carbon black which has a BET of at least roughly 40 m2/g to 1000 m2/g or greater [0074]. Venkatachalam et al. teaches nanoscale carbon additives or combinations improve cycling of the negative electrode [0082].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the conductive material in the amount give with a BET in the above range because this improves cycling in the negative electrode.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pestana et al. (US 10673062 B1) in view of Toyoda (US 2015/0044559 A1)
As to claim 19, Pestana discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 15 and teaches of a dispersant as discussed in claim 1 but does not disclose the dispersion stabilizer is polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Toyoda discloses a secondary battery with a negative electrode. Toyoda and discloses the addition of a dispersant such as polyvinylpyrrolidone that can suppress sedimentation and aggregation of the solid content in the slurry [0103].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include the polyvinylpyrrolidone because this suppresses sedimentation and aggregation of the solid content in the slurry. Furthermore, 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 MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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.
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727