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
New claims 7-14 in the response filed 05/20/2026 have been acknowledged and will be evaluated on the merits.
The amendments to claim 4 have overcome the prior 112(b) rejection of record and therefore the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
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, 5-6, and 13-14 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) and further in view of Roumi et al. (US 20170309918 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 as well as a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer on one side of the negative electrode core being in the range of 50-150 microns with the thickness of the first layer being 25-60% of the total thickness of the first and second layer, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
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 with no upper limit 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 explicit 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 second layer present between the electrode first layer and the current collector as doing so means that at least a particle A in the second layer have the required fracture strength and will not break even if the thickness is small.
Yushin is view of Yasuda is silent to a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer on one side of the negative electrode core being in the range of 50-150 microns with the thickness of the first layer being 25-60% of the total thickness of the first and second layer, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
Roumi teaches an electrochemical cell where the electrochemical cell includes an anode active material layer comprising an auxiliary current collector that is present between active material layers as well as layers comprising electrolyte (Roumi 0009 0019). The layers comprising electrolyte in this case consist of conductive fillers, such as graphite, in a liquid or gel electrolyte. The thickness of the total electrode can be between 10 microns – 1cm and the thickness of the interlayers (layers comprising electrolyte and graphite) are between 5nm – 1 mm (Roumi 0360). As the stated ranges fully overlap with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art In view of overlapping ranges and routine experimentation of a workable range to change the size of the electrode as well as the interlayer within to have a total single-side thickness of 50-150 microns as changing the size affects the battery capacity forming a result-effective variable. It would farther be obvious to change the thickness of the active material layer in relation to the interlayer to be within 25-60% of the total thickness of one side of the negative electrode core as changing the size of the active material layer and the interlayer affects the battery capacity and conductivity respectively forming a result-effective variable, See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take modified Yushin as described above and simply change the size of the negative electrode mixture layer to be within the claimed range as described by Roumi as a larger active material layer allows for a larger battery capacity.
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 as well as a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer on one side of the negative electrode core being in the range of 50-150 microns with the thickness of the first layer being 25-60% of the total thickness of the first and second layer, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
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 with no upper limit 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 explicit 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 in the second layer present between the electrode first layer and the current collector as doing so means that at least a particle A will have the required fracture strength and the second layer will not break even if the thickness is small.
Yushin is view of Yasuda is silent to a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer on one side of the negative electrode core being in the range of 50-150 microns with the thickness of the first layer being 25-60% of the total thickness of the first and second layer, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
Roumi teaches an electrochemical cell where the electrochemical cell includes an anode active material layer comprising an auxiliary current collector that is present between active material layers as well as layers comprising electrolyte (Roumi 0009 0019). The layers comprising electrolyte in this case consist of conductive fillers, such as graphite, in a liquid or gel electrolyte. The thickness of the total electrode can be between 10 microns – 1cm and the thickness of the interlayers (layers comprising electrolyte and graphite) are between 5nm – 1 mm (Roumi 0360). As the stated ranges fully overlap with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art In view of overlapping ranges and routine experimentation of a workable range to change the size of the electrode as well as the interlayer within to have a total single-side thickness of 50-150 microns as changing the size affects the battery capacity forming a result-effective variable. It would farther be obvious to change the thickness of the active material layer in relation to the interlayer to be within 25-60% of the total thickness of one side of the negative electrode core as changing the size of the active material layer and the interlayer affects the battery capacity and conductivity respectively forming a result-effective variable, See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take modified Yushin as described above and simply change the size of the negative electrode mixture layer to be within the claimed range as described by Roumi as a larger active material layer allows for a larger battery capacity.
Regarding claim 5, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi 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 and Roumi 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).
Regarding claim 13, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi teaches the negative electrode of claim 2 as discussed above 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 14, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi teaches the negative electrode of claim 2 as discussed above and Yushin further teaches a battery where the negative electrode is paired with a positive electrode and a separator where the separator is impregnated with an electrolyte that can be either liquid or solid (Yushin 0022 0023).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi 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.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yushin teaches the negative electrode of claim 2 as discussed above 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 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi 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 above 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.
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 B particle that has 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.
Regarding claim 7, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi teaches the negative electrode of claim 2 as discussed above 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.
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 B particle that has 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.
Regarding claim 8, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi 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 overlaps with the instant claims limitation of 3 m2/g to 7 m2/g.
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 particle that has a BET specific surface area between 3 m2/g and 4 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.
Regarding claim 9, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi teaches the negative electrode of claim 2 as discussed above 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 overlaps with the instant claims limitation of 3 m2/g to 7 m2/g.
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 particle that has a BET specific surface area between 3 m2/g and 4 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.
Regarding claim 10, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi teaches claim 4 as described above and Yasuda teaches that the fracture strength (tensile strength) of a graphite film is greater than 10 MPa with no upper limit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a strong graphite film as doing so means the film does not break even when the thickness is small (Yasuda, 0037). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art In view of overlapping ranges and routine experimentation of a workable range to change the fracture strength of at least a graphite B particle to be within 100-200 MPa as changing the fracture strength affects how easily the graphite breaks forming a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 11, Yushin in view of Yasuda and Roumi teaches claim 7 as described above and Yasuda teaches that the fracture strength (tensile strength) of a graphite film is greater than 10 MPa with no upper limit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a strong graphite film as doing so means the film does not break even when the thickness is small (Yasuda, 0037). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art In view of overlapping ranges and routine experimentation of a workable range to change the fracture strength of at least a graphite B particle to be within 100-200 MPa as changing the fracture strength affects how easily the graphite breaks forming a result-effective variable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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 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
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights