DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. New claims 11-20 have been added. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn. The previous objection to claim 8 is withdrawn. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 102 and 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1-20 are rejected under the following new 112 and 103 rejections. This action is made FINAL as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations “the natural graphite has a sphericity of 0.91 or less” and “the natural graphite has a sphericity of 0.6-0.91” are not supported by the specification. As stated in pg. 8, lines 17-19 of the specification, “The natural graphite used according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may have a sphericity of larger than 0.91 and equal to or less than 0.97, preferably 0.93- 0.97, and more preferably 0.94-0.96”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (EP 3739674 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10, Lee et al discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode (negative electrode) comprising: a copper foil (negative electrode current collector); and an anode active material layer (negative electrode active material layer) disposed on at least one surface of the copper foil, and having a first anode active material layer (lower layer region) containing a first active material and a SBR/CMC (first binder), and a second anode active material layer (upper layer region) disposed on the first anode active material layer and containing a second active material and PVA-PAA copolymer (second binder),
wherein a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the first anode active material layer is 3.5 wt% and a weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the second anode active material layer is 2 wt%,
the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer have a thickness ratio of 40:93 which is 1:2.325, and
the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer have a weight ratio of 1:2.325 because the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer having the same electrode density of 1.73 g/cc will correspond to the weight ratio being the same as the thickness ratio;
wherein a ratio of the weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the first anode active material layer based on the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the second anode active material layer is 3.5/2 which is 1.75 ([0102]-[0108]).
However, Lee et al does not expressly teach a negative electrode active material that excludes a silicon-based active material (claims 1 and 6).
Lee et al also discloses a first anode active material that includes a silicon-based active material and/or a carbon-based active material and a second anode active material that includes a silicon-based active material and/or a carbon-based active material ([0045],[0063]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Lee et al indicates that a carbon-based active material is a suitable material for use as an anode active material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use a carbon-based active material.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al also discloses each of the first active material and the second active material comprising artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, petroleum cokes ([0046],[0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al also discloses a method for manufacturing an anode, comprising the steps of:
preparing a first anode slurry containing a first active material, a first binder and a first dispersion medium, and a second anode slurry containing a second active material, a second binder and a second dispersion medium;
coating the first anode slurry on one surface of a negative electrode current collector to form a coated first anode slurry for the first anode active material layer, and coating the second anode slurry on the coated first anode slurry for second anode active material layer to form a coated second anode slurry for a second anode active material layer, at the same time; and
drying the coated first anode slurry and the coated second anode slurry at the same time to form an active material layer,
wherein a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the first anode active material layer is 3.5 wt% and a weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the second anode active material layer is 2 wt%,
the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer have a thickness ratio of 40:93 which is 1:2.325, and
the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer have a weight ratio of 1:2.325 because the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer having the same electrode density of 1.73 g/cc will correspond to the weight ratio being the same as the thickness ratio ([0102]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al does not expressly teach a weight ratio of the solid content of the coated slurry for a lower layer to the solid content of the coated slurry for an upper layer that is 1:1.65-1:9.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Lee anode to include a weight ratio of the solid content of the coated slurry for the lower layer to the solid content of the coated slurry for the upper layer that is 1:1.65-1:9 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). 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)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight ratio of the solid content of the coated slurry for a lower layer to the solid content of the coated slurry for an upper layer.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Lee et al also discloses a carbon-based active material that includes artificial graphite and natural graphite ([0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al does not expressly teach a lower layer region and an upper layer region that have a thickness ratio of 1:2.98-1:8.95.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Lee anode to include a lower layer region and an upper layer region that have a thickness ratio of 1:2.98-1:8.95 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). 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)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed thickness ratio of the lower layer region and the upper layer region.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (EP 3739674 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 2020/0176753). The Lee ‘674 reference is applied to claim 11 for reasons stated above.
However, Lee ‘674 does not expressly teach artificial graphite that has a sphericity of 0.91 or less (claim 12); artificial graphite that has a sphericity of 0.6-0.91 (claim 13).
Lee ‘753 discloses a negative electrode mixture layer comprising a second carbonaceous negative electrode active material such as artificial graphite having a sphericity of 0.70-0.89 ([0043],[0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Lee anode to include artificial graphite that has a sphericity of 0.70-0.89 in order to provide an electrode mixture layer with distribution of large pores, thereby significantly improving lithium ion input/output characteristics of the negative electrode mixture layer ([0043]).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (EP 3739674 A1) in view of Choi et al (US 2020/0343544). The Lee ‘674 reference is applied to claim 11 for reasons stated above.
However, Lee et al does not expressly teach natural graphite that has a sphericity of 0.91 or less (claim 15); natural graphite that has a sphericity of 0.6-0.91 (claim 16).
Choi et al discloses a negative electrode active material that includes a spherical carbon-based particle that is natural graphite having a sphericity of 0.75-0.9 ([0021],[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Lee anode to include natural graphite that has a sphericity of 0.75-0.9 in order to suppress the agglomeration of nano-particles, thereby stably securing capacity, lifespan, and efficiency of the battery ([0025]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0062158).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al discloses a negative electrode comprising: a copper foil (negative electrode current collector); and
a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the surface of the copper foil, and having a first negative electrode mixture layer (lower layer region) containing natural graphite (first active material) and a first binder including SBR (styrene butadiene rubber) and CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose), and a second negative electrode mixture layer (upper layer region) disposed on the first negative electrode mixture layer and containing artificial graphite (second active material) and a second binder including SBR (styrene butadiene rubber) and CMC (carboxymethylcellulose),
wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer have a thickness ratio of 48.1 um:111.5 um which is 1:2.32, and the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer have a weight ratio of 149 mg/cm cm2:345 mg/25 cm2 which is 1:2.32 ([0047],[0048]).
However, Kim et al does not expressly teach a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the lower layer region that is larger than the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the upper layer region (claim 18). Kim et al also discloses that the first polymer binder and the second polymer binder are independently components that assist in the bonding of the active material and the conductive material and the bonding to the current collector ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim negative electrode to include a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the lower layer region that is larger than the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the upper layer region in order to optimize the bonding of the first negative electrode mixture layer to the current collector. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kim negative electrode to include a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the lower layer region that is larger than the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the upper layer region because changes in proportion was held to have been obvious (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kim et al does not expressly teach the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a thickness ratio of 1:2.98-1:8.95 (claim 19); or the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a weight ratio of 1:3-1:9 (claim 20).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Kim negative electrode to include the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a thickness ratio of 1:2.98-1:8.95; or the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a weight ratio of 1:3-1:9 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The thickness ratio of the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer is a result effective variable of optimizing adhesion to the current collector as well as high output and long life cycle. 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)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed thickness ratio and weight ratio of the lower layer region and upper layer region.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2019/0305308).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 18, Lee et al discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode comprising: a copper foil current collector (negative electrode current collector); and
a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the surface of the copper foil current collector, and having a first negative electrode mixture layer (lower layer region) containing natural graphite (first active material) and a first binder including SBR (styrene butadiene rubber) and CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose), and a second negative electrode mixture layer (upper layer region) disposed on the first negative electrode mixture layer and containing artificial graphite (second active material) and a second binder including SBR (styrene butadiene rubber) and CMC (carboxymethylcellulose),
wherein the first negative electrode mixture layer has a thickness of more than 1/10 based on the weight of the entire negative electrode mixture layer which corresponds to the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer having a thickness ratio of 1:9 and a weight ratio of 1:9 ([0047],[0048]).
However, Lee et al does not expressly teach a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the lower layer region that is larger than the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the upper layer region (claims 1, 6, and 18).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lee negative electrode to include a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the lower layer region that is larger than the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the upper layer region in order to optimize the bonding of the first negative electrode mixture layer to the current collector. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lee negative electrode to include a weight percentage (wt%) of the first binder in the lower layer region that is larger than the weight percentage (wt%) of the second binder in the upper layer region because changes in proportion was held to have been obvious (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-9, 17, 19, and 20, Lee et al does not expressly teach a thickness ratio of the lower layer region to the upper layer region that is 1:1.65-1:8.96 (claims 2 and 7); a weight ratio of the lower layer region to the upper layer region that is 1:1.65-1:8.96 (claim 3); a ratio of the weight percentage of the first binder in the lower layer region based on the weight percentage of the second binder in the upper layer region that is 1.1-20 (claims 4 and 9); a weight ratio of the solid content of the coated slurry for a lower layer to the solid content of the coated slurry for an upper layer that is 1:1.65-1:9 (claim 8); the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a thickness ratio of 1:2.98-1:8.95 (claims 17 and 19); or the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a weight ratio of 1:3-1:9 (claim 20).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Lee negative electrode to include a thickness ratio of the lower layer region to the upper layer region that is 1:1.65-1:8.96; a weight ratio of the lower layer region to the upper layer region that is 1:1.65-1:8.96; a ratio of the weight percentage of the first binder in the lower layer region based on the weight percentage of the second binder in the upper layer region that is 1.1-20; a weight ratio of the solid content of the coated slurry for a lower layer to the solid content of the coated slurry for an upper layer that is 1:1.65-1:9; the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a thickness ratio of 1:2.98-1:8.95; or the lower layer region and the upper layer region having a weight ratio of 1:3-1:9 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The thickness ratio of the first negative electrode mixture layer and the second negative electrode mixture layer is a result effective variable of optimizing adhesion to the current collector as well as high output and long life cycle. 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)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed thickness ratio and weight ratio of the lower layer region and upper layer region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights