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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1-3, 7 amended to further limit the ranges for volume average particle size and/or BET specific surface area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the amendment made to further limit the average particle size and BET surface area overcomes the ranges taught in Sotowa alone. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsuchiya (US 20230084916 A1), which teaches the desired combination of particle size and BET surface area as well as a desirable spring back ratio. In light of the new rejection in view of Tsuchiya, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims. If applicant does not deem it proper to modify Tsuchiya to include a solid electrolyte, as taught by Sotowa, examiner would respond to that argument by stating that Sotowa could also be modified by Tsuchiya to meet the amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20230084916 A1) in view of Sotowa (US 20190305293 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchiya teaches all of the following elements:
A negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery, (“The present disclosure relates to a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery and a method of producing the same, a negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery, and a lithium-ion secondary battery.” Tsuchiya [0001])
the negative electrode comprising a negative-electrode active material (“The present disclosure relates to a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery and a method of producing the same, a negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery, and a lithium-ion secondary battery.” Tsuchiya [0001])
the negative-electrode active material comprising a carbon material that has an interplanar spacing (d002) of from 0.336 nm to less than 0.350 nm (“From the foregoing viewpoints, the average interplanar spacing (d.sub.002) is preferably from 0.33557 to 0.33600 nm” Tsuchiya [0131])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.33557-0.336nm for the interlayer spacing of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 0.336-0.350nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a volume average particle size of 12 um or more, (“The average particle size of the flat graphite particles that constitute the specific composite particles is, for example, preferably from 5 to 25 μm, more preferably from 8 to 20 μm, and further preferably from 10 to 15 μm, from the viewpoint of ease of the gathering or the binding.” Tsuchiya [0062]. Tsuchiya table 1 shows examples 1-3 all having a d50 of between 16-18um.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5-25 μm for the average particle size of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of greater than 12μm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a BET specific surface area based on nitrogen adsorption of 1.8 m2/g or more, (“The specific composite particles preferably have a specific surface area (N2 specific surface area) of from 0.5 to 2.8 m.sup.2/g, more preferably from 0.5 to 2.4 m.sup.2/g, further preferably from 0.5 to 2.2 m.sup.2/g,” Tsuchiya [0099])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-2.8 m2/g for the BET specific surfaced area of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 1.8m2/g or greater for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and a spring-back ratio of 13% or more. (“The specific composite particles preferably have a springback amount measured by the following method of 40% or more, more preferably 45% or more, and further preferably 50% or more.” Tsuchiya [0116] This anticipates the claimed range.)
Tsuchiya is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
and a solid electrolyte,
However, Sotowa teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Tsuchiya. Additionally, Sotowa teaches an interlayer spacing that further overlaps the claimed range, which teaches that it would be an obvious parameter to adjust in order to achieve optimal results:
and a solid electrolyte, (“wherein the negative electrode includes the solid electrolyte, a negative electrode active material, and a conductive additive,” Sotowa [0018])
the negative-electrode active material comprising a carbon material that has an interplanar spacing (d002) of from 0.336 nm to less than 0.350 nm (“wherein the negative electrode active material includes graphite particles each having an interlayer spacing d002 of a graphite crystal of from 0.3360 nm to 0.3370 nm” Sotowa [0019]. This anticipates the claimed range.)
Sotowa is considered to be analogous to Tsuchiya because they are both within the same field of negative electrodes and/or negative electrode active materials for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya to include a solid electrolyte in order to be a solid-state secondary battery, as the active materials taught by the two pieces are art are nearly identical, and therefore would be reasonable to be used in either aqueous or solid state batteries. Sotowa additionally cites the benefits of using a solid electrolyte, which further supports the above obviousness argument (“As one method of improving safety of the lithium ion battery, an all-solid-state lithium ion battery using a solid electrolyte, which is non-combustible and free of liquid leakage, instead of an organic liquid electrolyte” Sotowa [0002]) Additionally, both references specify the interlayer spacing, surface area, and particle size, which demonstrates that these parameters are result-effective variable which can be altered to optimize results/characteristics. The range taught by Tsuchiya already overlaps that of the instant claim, but that of Sotowa anticipates it and is therefore included to strengthen the rejection.
By modifying Tsuchiya to include the solid electrolyte of Sotowa, including its material and quantity, there would be no further modification or motivation needed to meet the limitations of claims 2-6.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuchiya teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon material has a volume average particle size of from 12 μm to 30 μm. (“The average particle size of the flat graphite particles that constitute the specific composite particles is, for example, preferably from 5 to 25 μm, more preferably from 8 to 20 μm, and further preferably from 10 to 15 μm, from the viewpoint of ease of the gathering or the binding.” Tsuchiya [0062]. Tsuchiya table 1 shows examples 1-3 all having a d50 of between 16-18um.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5-25 μm for the average particle size of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 12-30μm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Tsuchiya teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon material has a BET specific surface area based on a nitrogen adsorption capacity of from 1.8 m2/g to 10 m2/g (“The specific composite particles preferably have a specific surface area (N2 specific surface area) of from 0.5 to 2.8 m.sup.2/g, more preferably from 0.5 to 2.4 m.sup.2/g, further preferably from 0.5 to 2.2 m.sup.2/g,” Tsuchiya [0099])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-2.8 m2/g for the BET specific surfaced area of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 1.8-10 m2/g the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tsuchiya teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Tsuchiya is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the negative- electrode active material and the solid electrolyte (negative-electrode active material: solid electrolyte) is from 5:95 to 70:30.
However, Sotowa teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Tsuchiya:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the negative- electrode active material and the solid electrolyte (negative-electrode active material: solid electrolyte) is from 5:95 to 70:30. (“In one embodiment of the present invention, the negative electrode includes 35 parts by mass to 45 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, 45 parts by mass to 55 parts by mass of the solid electrolyte, and 5 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass of the conductive additive.” Sotowa [0054]. In this case, if there were 45 parts per mass of negative electrode active material and 45 parts per mass of solid electrolyte, the ratio would be 1:1 (or 50:50), which would anticipate the claimed range. Even if the negative electrode active material were 35 parts per mass and the solid electrolyte were 55 parts per mass, the ratio would still anticipate the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Tsuchiya teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Tsuchiya is silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte.
However, Sotowa teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Tsuchiya:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte. (“In one embodiment of the present invention, for example, an oxide-based solid electrolyte or a sulfide-based solid electrolyte is used as the solid electrolyte.” Sotowa [0062]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use a sulfide solid electrolyte, as that is one of the possible options taught by Sotowa.)
Regarding claim 6, by modifying Tsuchiya to include a solid electrolyte, all of the limitations would be met:
An all-solid-state battery, comprising the negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, a positive electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer that is disposed between the negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery and the positive electrode. (“The lithium-ion secondary battery according to the present disclosure includes: the negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to the present disclosure; a positive electrode; and an electrolytic solution.” Tsuchiya [0204]. In this case, if the electrolyte of Tsuchiya were modified to be a solid electrolyte, as described in claim 1, all of the above limitation would be met.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 20230084916 A1):
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchiya teaches all of the following elements:
A negative-electrode active material, (“The present disclosure relates to a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery and a method of producing the same, a negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery, and a lithium-ion secondary battery.” Tsuchiya [0001])
consisting of a carbon material that has an interplanar spacing (doo2) of from 0.336 nm to less than 0.350 nm, (“From the foregoing viewpoints, the average interplanar spacing (d.sub.002) is preferably from 0.33557 to 0.33600 nm” Tsuchiya [0131])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.33557-0.336nm for the interlayer spacing of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 0.336-0.350nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a volume average particle size of 12 um or more, (“The average particle size of the flat graphite particles that constitute the specific composite particles is, for example, preferably from 5 to 25 μm, more preferably from 8 to 20 μm, and further preferably from 10 to 15 μm, from the viewpoint of ease of the gathering or the binding.” Tsuchiya [0062]. Tsuchiya table 1 shows examples 1-3 all having a d50 of between 16-18um.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5-25 μm for the average particle size of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of greater than 12μm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a BET specific surface area based on nitrogen adsorption of 1.8 m2/g or more, (“The specific composite particles preferably have a specific surface area (N2 specific surface area) of from 0.5 to 2.8 m.sup.2/g, more preferably from 0.5 to 2.4 m.sup.2/g, further preferably from 0.5 to 2.2 m.sup.2/g,” Tsuchiya [0099])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-2.8 m2/g for the BET specific surfaced area of the negative electrode active material overlaps the claimed range of 1.8m2/g or greater for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and a spring-back ratio of 13% or more. (“The specific composite particles preferably have a springback amount measured by the following method of 40% or more, more preferably 45% or more, and further preferably 50% or more.” Tsuchiya [0116] This anticipates the claimed range.)
Conclusion
The following references were discovered in an updated search and were considered to be relevant but were not used in rejection:
Miyauchi (US 20220285684 A1)—teaches a negative electrode material where the springback ratio, surface area, and particle size are all variables optimized/provided with ranges.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights