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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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. The phrase “the graphite A and a graphite B having a BET specific surface area of greater than or equal to 0.5 m2/g and less than or equal to 2.5 m2/g” in claim 4 is indefinite as it is unclear if the BET specific surface area is present in both graphite A and Graphite B or only graphite B. For the purposes of examination it is being interpreted as both graphite A and graphite B have a BET specific surface area between 0.5 m2/g and 2.5 m2/g. It should also be noted that under this interpretation there is no distinct differences between graphites A and B as defined by the claims and therefore as long as the second layer has at least two distinct graphite particles with a fracture strength and specific surface area between the applicable ranges, the claim limitation is met.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20190123339 A1) in view of Yasuda et al. (US 20160279902 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yushin teaches an anode electrode that has an electrode core (current collector) and an electrode coating that comprises Si active material particles, conductive additives, and a binder (0011). Yushin further teaches that the conductive additives can be either single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotubes (0090) and is present in amounts less than 10% by weight, which is the same as mass % and fully encompasses the instant claims limitation forming a prima facia case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 (0092). Yushin further teaches that the overall weight % of inactive components, the binder and conductive additives combined, can be between .5% and 14% (0083). The instant application in this case would have a combined range of the weight percent of inactive components between 9% and 28% (3% carbon nanotubes + 6% binder at the lower end up to 10% carbon nanotubes + 18% binder at the higher end). As there is significant overlap between the instant application and the prior art it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Yushin further discloses a second layer (the interlayer or buffer layer) which is present between the first layer and the electrode core (current collector) and can contain graphite flakes (0101 explains the interlayer, 0103 says graphite flakes can be present).
Yushin is silent to a particle fracture strength of the second layer.
Yasuda teaches a graphite laminated body useful for its electrical conductivity (Yasuda, 0003) and further exemplifies that the fracture strength (tensile strength) of a graphite film is greater than 10 MPa and it would be obvious to use a graphite film with this strength as doing so means the film does not break even when the thickness is small (Yasuda, 0037). In this case, Yasuda uses a tensile strength of 22 MPa as an example of a film (Yasuda, 0140) which is a distinct value between 10 and 35 MPa and therefore renders the instant applications claim obvious.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the negative electrode of Yushin as described above and use the graphite laminated body of Yasuda as at least the graphite flakes in the second layer present between the electrode first layer and the current collector as doing so means that the second layer will not break even if the thickness is small.
Regarding claim 2, Yushin teaches an anode electrode that has an electrode core (current collector) and an electrode coating that comprises Si active material particles, conductive additives, and a binder (0011). Yushin further teaches that the conductive additives can be either single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotubes (0090) and is present in amounts less than 10% by weight, which is the same as mass % and fully encompasses the instant claims limitation forming a prima facia case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 (0092). Yushin further teaches that the overall weight % of inactive components, the binder and conductive additives combined, can be between .5% and 14% (0083). The instant application in this case would have a combined range of the weight percent of inactive components between 6.2% and 10.7% (0.2% carbon nanotubes + 6% binder at the lower end up to 10% carbon nanotubes + 0.7% binder at the higher end). As there is significant overlap between the instant application and the prior art it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Yushin further discloses a second layer (the interlayer or buffer layer) which is present between the first layer and the electrode core (current collector) and can contain graphite flakes (0101 explains the interlayer, 0103 says graphite flakes can be present).
Yushin is silent to a particle fracture strength of the second layer.
Yasuda teaches a graphite laminated body useful for its electrical conductivity (Yasuda, 0003) and further exemplifies that the fracture strength (tensile strength) of a graphite film is greater than 10 MPa and it would be obvious to use a graphite film with this strength as doing so means the film does not break even when the thickness is small (Yasuda, 0037). In this case, Yasuda uses a tensile strength of 22 MPa as an example of a film (Yasuda, 0140) which is a distinct value between 10 and 35 MPa and therefore renders the instant applications claim obvious.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the negative electrode of Yushin as described above and use the graphite laminated body of Yasuda as at least the graphite flakes in the second layer present between the electrode first layer and the current collector as doing so means that the second layer will not break even if the thickness is small.
Regarding claim 5, Yushin in view of Yasuda teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as discussed regarding claim 1 and Yushin teaches that the second layer (buffer layer) containing graphite is present between the negative current collector (negative electrode core) and the active material layer (electrode coating) containing silicon, carbon nanotubes, and a binder (Yushin, 0101).
Regarding claim 6, Yushin in view of Yasuda teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as discussed regarding claim 1 and Yushin teaches that the negative electrode can go in a metal-ion battery alongside a positive electrode and an electrolyte (Yushin 0022). The electrolyte can be solid and therefore non-aqueous (Yushin, 0023).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin in view of Yasuda and further in view of Kasamatsu et al. (US 6605386 B1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yushin teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as discussed regarding claim 1 but Yushin only states that the electrode can have a gradient where the porosity shifts from high to low depending on where you measure (Yushin 0052, gradient in porosity, Yushin 0125, high porosity and low porosity) and is silent to distinct values.
Kasamatsu teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery with a negative electrode mixture layer comprising silicon with the mixture layer having a porosity of between 10% and 50% which overlaps with the instant application at 50% porosity. It would be obvious to use this porosity range as going too low results in deteriorated charge/discharge cycle properties and going too high results in less material and a therefore lower capacity, though it does still provide better penetration of electrolyte solution (Kasamatsu, page 11, column 8, lines 13-43).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the modified negative electrolyte of Yushin in view of Yasuda as explained regarding claim 1 and have a porosity of the first layer be 50% as taught by Kasamatsu using 50% would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin in view of Yasuda and further in view of Hiraoka et al. (US 20160204430 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yushin in view of Yasuda teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as discussed regarding claim 1 but is silent to the BET specific surface area of the graphite layer.
Hiraoka teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery with a negative electrode layer containing at least Si and graphite where the graphite has a BET specific surface area of between .5 m2/g and 4 m2/g (Hiraoka, 0017) which fully encompasses the instant claims limitation of .5 m2/g to 2.5 m2/g. As discussed above regarding 112(b), because graphite A and graphite B as claimed are functionally indistinct from each other and the layer has multiple graphite particles, all limitations regarding them have been met. Further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new unexpected result is produced which, in this case, is not present.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to take the modified negative electrolyte of Yushin in view of Yasuda as explained regarding claim 1 and have the graphite layer comprise at least a graphite A and a graphite B that have a BET specific surface area between .5 m2/g and 2.5 m2/g as Hiraoka teaches that the range increases Li-ion acceptability (Hiraoka, 0017) and It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728