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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/19/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because a copy of Korean Patent Office Application 10-2023-0187087 Office Action October 31 2024 was not provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, states that the second anode active material further comprises a carbon-based material. However, Claim 1 states that the second anode active material layer comprises single-walled carbon nanotubes, which is/are a subcategory of carbon-based material.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20200243848-A1).
Claim 1: Kim ‘848 teaches a negative electrode [¶ 0031], a negative electrode current collector (10) [¶ 0031], a first negative electrode active material layer (30) [¶ 0031] formed on at least one side of the negative electrode current collector [¶ 0031], that said first active material layer [¶ 0031] comprises a carbon-based material [¶ 0031], a second negative electrode active material layer (40) formed on the first anode active material layer [¶ 0031, 0040; FIGs. 2 & 3], that said second anode active material layer comprises a silicon-based material and carbon nanotubes {CNTs} [¶ 0031], and that the CNTs may by single-walled carbon nanotubes [¶ 0043].
Kim ‘848 does not teach a weight ratio of the silicon-based material and the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 30:1 to 150:1, but does teach a weight ratio of the silicon-based material and the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 1:99-99:1 [¶ 0033].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to have chosen a weight ratio of the silicon-based material and the single-walled carbon nanotubes that was between 30:1 to 150:1 because said bounds are within the operative range of 1:99 to 99:1 taught by Kim ‘848. It has been held that overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 2: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches a second anode active material layer further comprising a carbon-based material besides CNTs [¶ 0033].
Claim 3: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the carbon-based material of the first negative electrode active material layer being ketjen black [¶ 0059].
Claim 4: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the silicon-based material being Si alloy [¶ 0055].
Claim 5: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the second anode active material layer further comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes [¶ 0043].
Claims 8-9: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches an average length of the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 0.5 µm to 20 µm [¶ 0046].
Claim 10: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kim ‘848 does not teach a weight ratio of the silicon-based material and the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 30:1 to 150:1, but does teach a weight ratio of the silicon-based material and the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 1:99-99:1 [¶ 0033].
Claim 11: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the silicon-based active material being present in an amount of 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on a total weight of the first and second negative active material layer [¶ 0018] and a thickness ratio of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer of 90:10 to 10:90 [¶ 0069].
It is reasonable to assume that the material in Kim ‘848 was applied homogenously, since Kim disclosed homogenous distribution of material [¶ 0021]. By considering the disclosed silicon-based material weight range against the layer thickness ratio, we can calculate the range of silicon content of Kim ‘848 based on the total weight of the second anode active material layer. This is demonstrated by the following equations:
10
%
×
1
w
t
%
=
0.1
w
t
%
90
%
×
3
0
w
t
%
=
27
w
t
%
Kim ‘848 teaches a content of the silicon-based material being 0.1 wt% to 27 wt%.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to have chosen a content of the silicon-based material being 1 wt% to 20 wt% based on the total weight of the second anode active material layer because said bounds are within the operative range of 0.1 wt% to 27 wt% taught by Kim ‘848. It has been held that overlapping ranges establish a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 12: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that “The carbon nanotubes may be present in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% based on a total weight of the first and second negative electrode active material layers” [¶ 0014].
Claim 13: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches a thickness ratio of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer of 90:10 to 10:90 [¶ 0069]. The Examiner recognizes the term “thickness ratio” as identical to a “loading ratio”, as claimed in the present disclosure.
While Kim ‘848 does not explicitly teach a loading ratio of 2:8 to 8:2, these values fall within the taught in Kim ‘848 and could have been determined upon routine optimization. For more on matters of optimization through routine experimentation, see MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Claim 15: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. It further teaches that the coating process can be any currently used in the Art (such as spray coating) [¶ 0077].
Kim ‘848 does not explicitly teach a primer layer formed between the anode current collector and the first negative electrode active material layer. However, because spray coating is a time sensitive process, the process of spray coating portions of applied negative electrode active material applied to the current collector would act as a primer layer for the remainder of the applied coat.
Claim 16: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 15, as discussed above. It further teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprises a binder [¶ 0070].
Claim 17: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. It further teaches that the binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber [¶ 0078].
Claim 18: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. It further teaches the anode active material layer comprises a thickening agent [¶ 0071].
Claim 19: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 18, as discussed above. It further teaches that the thickening agent comprises carboxymethyl cellulose [¶ 0080].
Claim 20: Kim ‘848 teaches a secondary battery containing the negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator interposed between both electrodes [¶ 0084].
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20200243848-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh (US-20220255060-A1).
Claims 6-7: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It also teaches that the electrical properties of the CNTs are dependent on the chirality and diameter [¶ 0044].
Kim ‘848 does not teach an average diameter of the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 3 nm to 20 nm.
Oh ‘060 teaches a negative electrode for application in a lithium secondary battery [¶ 0023], that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material layer [¶ 0024] further comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes [¶ 0025], and an average diameter of the single-walled carbon nanotubes being 3 nm to 20 nm [¶ 0055].
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the carbon nanotubes in the disclosure of Kim ‘848 to have the diameter disclosed by Oh ‘060 in order to obtain a desired electrical conductivity, as suggested by Kim.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20200243848-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motoki (US-20240120467-A1).
Claim 14: Kim ‘848 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Kim ‘848 does not explicitly teach a loading level of 5 mg/cm2 to 15 mg/cm2.
Motoki ‘467 teaches the disclosure can be used in a lithium ion secondary battery [¶ 0030], that the lithium ion secondary battery using the disclosed invention may use a negative electrode obtained by a production method known in the Art [¶ 0154], and a slurry composition for a negative electrode with a coating weight of 9.5-10.5 mg/cm2 [¶ 0208]. The term “coating weight” in Motoki ‘467 as the same as the term known in the Art, “loading level”.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Kim ‘848 with the Motoki ‘467 negative electrode loading level because that loading amount is present in a known method of negative electrode production, as stated by Motoki.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video using USPTO supplied web collaboration tools. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 USPTO Customer Service, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights