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: the instant claim recites “a cathode active material that comprises a blend of LMFP and NCM”. The Examiner requests the instant claim be amended to include the full name and the abbreviation of the materials, in order to improve clarity of the record. For example, the recitation of NCM should be amended to “nickel cobalt manganese (NCM).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5, 7-11 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.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient basis for “the SiOx.” For the purposes of examination, the SiOx of claim 5 is presumed to refer to the SiOx of claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the anode active layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 9-10, the instant claims recite “the cathode active layer comprises the cathode active material…based on a total weight of the anode active layer.” The Examiner believes this is a typo, and should be based on a total weight of the cathode active layer. For the purposes of Examination, the Examiner has interpreted the claim consistent with the subject matter of the disclosure, where the amount of cathode active material given in the instant claims is based on the total weight of the cathode active layer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamamoto (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2018006129 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an energy storage device (lithium ion secondary battery) (Paragraph 0001), comprising an electrolyte, active layer (negative electrode) comprising an anode active material (Paragraph 0011), and a cathode active layer comprising a cathode active material (Paragraph 0010).
Yamamoto teaches the positive electrode active material of the disclosure comprising a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) containing nickel and a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) containing iron (Paragraph 0018). Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) may be represented by a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) material (Paragraph 0021). Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) may be represented by a lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) material (Paragraph 0024).
Thus, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material comprising a blend of LMFP and NCM, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Yamamoto teaches suitable anode active materials capable of occluding and releasing lithium that may be used in combination including graphite as well as bismuth (SiO2) and silicon oxides SiOx (0 < x < 2) (Paragraph 0059).
Thus, Yamamoto teaches the anode active material comprises silicon and graphite, or it would have been obvious to select graphite and silicon-containing compounds from the finite list of suitable negative electrode materials taught by Yamamoto to arrive at the negative electrode of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a material capable of occluding and releasing lithium.
Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A), the NCM positive electrode active material as discussed above, is present in the positive electrode active material at a mass MA. Yamamoto teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B), the LMFP positive electrode active material as discussed above, is present in the positive electrode active material at a mass MB. Yamamoto teaches the ratio of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B) to the sum of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A) and (B), MB/(MA+MB), in the positive electrode active material is between 0.05 and 0.40 (Paragraphs 0032-0033).
Thus, Yamamoto teaches LMFP (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B)) is present in a smaller amount than NCM (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A)), meeting the instant claimed limitations of NCM present in a larger amount than the LMFP.
Further, Yamamoto teaches the compositions of the positive electrode active material in the Examples 1-10 of the disclosure in Table 1, wherein for each of the examples, a greater quantity of NCM is included in the positive electrode composition than the LMFP, further exemplifying this teaching (Paragraph 0089).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
1006
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translated Table 1 of Yamamoto
Yamamoto teaches in addition to the positive electrode active material, the positive electrode layer may comprise a binder (Paragraph 0028) such as polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polypropylene oxide (PPO), polyethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer (PEO-PPO) (Paragraph 0030). Therefore, Yamamoto teaches suitable binders for the cathode which do not comprise fluorine. Thus, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material comprises a polymeric binder that has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine, or it would have been obvious to select PVDC, PEO, PPO, or PEO-PPO from the finite list of suitable binders taught by Yamamoto to ensure the polymeric binder has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Yamamoto teaches in addition to the negative electrode active material, the negative electrode layer may comprise a binder as described above in the suitable binders for the positive electrode (Paragraph 0058). Therefore, Yamamoto also teaches suitable binders for the anode which do not comprise fluorine. Thus, Yamamoto teaches the anode active material comprises a polymeric binder that has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine, or it would have been obvious to select PVDC, PEO, PPO, or PEO-PPO from the finite list of suitable binders taught by Yamamoto to ensure the polymeric binder has less than 900 parts per million of fluorine in accordance with the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
As described above, Yamamoto teaches bismuth (SiO2) and silicon oxides SiOx (0 < x < 2) as suitable anode active materials (Paragraph 0059), which correspond to the instant claimed formula for the silicon particles, SiOx, where x is 1 to 4.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Table 1 of Yamamoto provides the compositions of the positive electrode active material in the Examples 1-10 of the disclosure (Paragraph 0089). As seen in the Table 1, the composition of LMFP in the positive electrode active material for Examples 1-10 varies, but is less than 50 wt%, based on a total weight of the cathode active material, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
As described above, Table 1 of Yamamoto discloses the compositions of active layer for Examples 1-10, particularly the composition of NCM523 (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (A)), LMFP (lithium-containing transition metal oxide (B)) in the cathode active layer.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material comprises a blend of LMFP and NCM. Thus, by summing the columns disclosing the weight percentage of NCM and LMFP in Table 1 of Yamamoto, the proportion of cathode active material in the cathode active layer can be calculated.
PNG
media_image2.png
493
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Portion of Table 1 of Yamamoto
As is shown in the annotated Figure above, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active layer comprises the cathode active material in an amount greater than or equal to 90 wt% based on a total weight of the cathode active layer (see 112b interpretation above).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the anode active layer further comprises an electrically conducting additive (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the cathode active layer further comprises an electrically conducting additive (Paragraph 0028).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12 above.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
In the preparation of the negative electrode as disclosed in Example 1 of Yamamoto, the negative electrode slurry is prepared by mixing 930 g of natural graphite (anode active material) and 1 g of Super-P (conductive additive) and later adding 500 g of NMP (solvent), 500 g of an 8% -PVDF solution (PVDF dissolved in NMP) (binder and solvent), then 250 g of an 8% -PVDF solution (binder) before drying (Paragraphs 0076-0077).
Thus, the quantity of anode active material in the anode active layer may be calculated as follows:
= 930 g anode active material / (930 g anode active material + 1 g conductive additive + (0.08 * 500) g binder + (0.08 * 250) g binder
= 94 %
Thus, Yamamoto teaches an example in which the anode active material comprises 94% by weight of the anode active layer. The range of anode active material in the anode active layer of Yamamoto overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Yamamoto teaches in the method of preparing the positive electrode, the positive electrode active material power, conductive additive, binder, and thermally cross linkable polymer are mixed. Yamamoto teaches the mass ratio of each component in the following proportions 80 to 96: 1 to 10 : 1 to 10: 0.1 to 5, respectively (Paragraph 0047).
Thus, the upper and lower limits of the cathode active material in the cathode active layer may be calculated as follows, on a basis of 100 parts of material in the cathode active layer:
Upper limit:
96 parts of active material / (96 parts active material + 1 part conductive additive + 1 part binder + 0.1 parts thermally cross linkable binder)
= 98 % cathode active material based on a total weight of the cathode active layer (see 112b interpretation above)
Lower limit:
80 parts of active material / (80 parts active material + 10 parts conductive additive + 10 parts binder +5 parts thermally cross linkable binder)
= 76 % cathode active material based on a total weight of the cathode active layer (see 112b interpretation above)
Thus, Yamamoto teaches the cathode active material may suitably comprise 76-98% by weight of the cathode active layer. The range of cathode active material in the cathode active layer of Yamamoto overlaps with the range of the instant claim (see 112b interpretation above). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-12 above, further in view of Byrd (Non-Patent Literature “Asymmetric Membranes Containing Micron-Size Silicon for High Performance Lithium Ion Battery Anode”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Yamamoto is silent as to the silicon of the anode active material being microsilicon.
However, Byrd discloses a micron-size Si anode (microsilicon) for use in a lithium ion battery (Abstract). Byrd teaches that small dimensions of Si materials can promote a high rate performance of lithium-ion diffusion, and further that the use of microsilicon with greater tapped density is more economically profitable than the use of nanosilicon materials in battery anodes (Page 46, Column 2, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, 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 silicon material of Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Byrd in which the silicon is microsilicon. Doing so would advantageously result in lower fabrication costs of a silicon anode with higher tapped density and improved lithium ion diffusion, as recognized by Byrd.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-12 above, further in view of Sawayama (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2013030428A).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 2.
Yamamoto is silent as to the SiOx is present in amount of greater than 50 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active material.
However, Sawayama discloses a negative electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Paragraph 1), comprising a silicon oxide SiOx (0 < x < 2) and a carbon material (Paragraph 8). Sawayama teaches that the negative electrode active material preferably contains 5% by weight or more and 95% by weight or less, more preferably 70% by weight or more and 90% by weight or less, of silicon oxide. Sawayama teaches that when the content of silicon oxide in the negative electrode active material lies outside this range, the conductivity provided by the carbon material is lowered, deteriorating the charge and discharge cycle characteristics and the lithium ion absorption may be small, lower charge/discharge capacity (Paragraph 29).
Therefore, 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 proportion of SiOx in the anode active material of Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Sawayama in which the composition is between 70% to 90% by weight of the anode active material layer. Doing so would advantageously result in sufficient conductivity and lithium ion absorption, as recognized by Sawayama.
The resulting range of SiOx in the anode active material of Yamamoto in view of Sawayama lies within the instant claimed range, meeting the limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Yamamoto is silent as to the SiOx is present in amount of greater than 80 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active material.
However, as discussed above, Yamamoto in view of Sawayama teaches SiOx present in the anode active material between 70% to 90% by weight of the anode active material layer in order to ensure desirable conductivity, charge/discharge characteristics, and lithium ion adsorption.
Thus, the proportion of SiOx present in the anode active material of Yamamoto in view of Sawayama overlaps with the instant claimed range. Thus, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-12 above, further in view of Yew (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080118834 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the energy storage device of claim 1.
Yamamoto is silent as to the anode active layer comprises the anode active material in an amount of greater than equal to 95 wt%, based on a total weight of the anode active layer.
However, Yew discloses negative active material active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (Paragraph 0003). Yew teaches the negative electrode composition of the negative electrode comprising negative electrode active material, a binder, and a conductive agent which is applied on the negative current collector (Paragraph 0068). Yew teaches the negative active material may include silicon oxide and carbon (Paragraph 0020). Further, Yew teaches the negative active material included in an amount of 50 to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. Yew teaches that when the amount of the negative active material is less than 50 wt %, battery capacity may be decreased, and when it is more than 99 wt %, the relative amount of binder is reduced and thus binding force between the negative active material layer and a current collector may be decreased (Paragraph 0068).
Therefore, 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 anode active material of Yamamoto to incorporate the teachings of Yew in which he negative active material included in an amount of 50 to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the negative active material layer. Doing so would advantageously result in the desired battery capacity and binding force, as recognized by Yew.
The range of anode active material in the anode active layer as a result of the modification of Yamamoto in view of Yew overlaps with the instant claimed range. Thus, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights