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 .
Status of Application
Claims 6 and 11 are preliminarily amended, submitted on 7/11/2023. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
1. Claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, Ln 8-9, “a ratio of D50 of the carbon-based active material to D90 of the silicon-based active material is 2 to 5” should read “a ratio range of the D50 of the carbon-based active material to the D90 of the silicon-based active material is from 2 to 5” according to instant specification [¶0013];
In claim 2, Ln 2, “in an amount of 70 wt% to 90 wt%” should read “in an amount ranging from 70 wt% to 90 wt%”;
In claim 3, “D90 of the silicon-based active material is 3 µm to 10 µm” should read “a range of the D90 of the silicon-based active material is from 3 µm to 10 µm”;
In claim 4, “D50 of the silicon-based active material is 1 µm to 5 µm” should read “a range of the D90 of the silicon-based active material is from 1 µm to 5 µm”;
Similar objections apply to claims 5, 7-10 and 12;
In claim 14, Ln 1, “A secondary batter comprising:” should read “A secondary battery comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-10, terms of D10, D50 and D90 are broadly and reasonably interpreted in light of the special definition in the instant specification at para [0017], noting that “In the present specification, may be defined as a particle diameter respectively corresponding to 10%, 50% and 90% of the volume accumulation in a particle diameter distribution curve of a particle.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (US 20160156025 A1, IDS of 7/11/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a negative electrode (100’, [0037] and FIG. 1) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (101’, [0037] and FIG. 1); and a negative electrode active material layer (negative electrode mixture layer 105’, [0037]) disposed on the negative electrode current collector (FIG. 1), wherein: the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material containing a silicon-based active material (SiOx, [0076] and particles 103’ in FIG. 1) and a carbon-based active material (graphite, [0076] and 102’ in FIG. 1). Shin further discloses the Example 28, ([0076] and Table 2) which shows a SiOx to graphite weight ratio of 20:80, falling within the claimed weight ratio range of from 12:88 to 28:72; and a calculated ratio (22.5/8.8=2.56) of D50 of graphite to D90 of SiOx, falling within the range from 2 to 5 as claimed “a ratio of D50 of the carbon-based active material to D90 of the silicon-based active material is 2 to 5” .
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin’s Example 28 of Table 2 shows D90 of the silicon- based active material being 8.8 µm, falling within the claimed range of from 3 µm to 10 µm (claim 3); and D50 of the silicon- based active material being 4 µm, falling within the claimed range of from 1 µm to 5 µm (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Since Shin’s Example 28 of Table 2 has included D90 of the silicon-based active material being 8.8 µm; and D50 of the silicon-based active material being 4 µm, Shin inherently discloses (D90-D10)/D50 of the silicon-based active material is 5 or less, because D90/D50 is already calculated to be 2.2, less than 5, and D10 is supposed to be a number larger than zero.
Regarding claim 6, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin prepares SiOx by mixing Si particles and SiOx particles with heating up to 1000 °C in an argon gas atmosphere for three hours to obtain particles in which a Si particle crystal is embedded in SiOx due to a disproportionation reaction ([0073]), which inherently discloses 0≤x<2.
Regarding claim 8, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin’s D50 of the carbon-based active material (graphite) is 22.5 µm (Example 28 in Table 2), falling within the claimed range of from 15 µm to 27 µm.
Regarding claim 11, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin further discloses the carbon-based material can be artificial graphite or natural graphite ([0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin further discloses the negative electrode active material layer further comprises a conductive material (conductive assistant, [0047]) and a binder ([0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin further discloses a secondary battery ([0071]) comprising: the negative electrode according to claim 1; a positive electrode ([0062] and 5 in FIG. 4) opposing the negative electrode ([0057] and 6 in FIG. 4); a separator (separator 7, [0057] and FIG. 4) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and an electrolyte ([0021] and [0055]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 2, 7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20160156025 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yamada (US 20190273248 A1, IDS of 7/11/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin further discloses the desire of achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound ([0020]). While Shin further discloses a negative electrode active material layer contains a conductive assistant and a binder as public known ([0047]); and in the background section Shin cites WO-2013/101921-A showing a binder of 5% to 25% by weight when the whole weight of the whole active material layer is set as 100% by weight ([0013]). However, Shin does not explicitly disclose the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount of 70 wt% to 90 wt%.
Yamada teaches to solve similar problems of insufficient discharge capacity, rate characteristics and charge-discharge efficiency ([0010-0012]) by controlling the particle size distribution of a negative electrode material containing carbonaceous particles and silicon oxide particles to be in an appropriate range ([0013]). Yamada further teaches the binder used in the negative electrode material is preferably not less than 0.2 parts by weight and not greater than 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material ([0194-0195]); thickening agent in an amount of usually 0.1 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material ([0196]); and 2.0 parts by weight of a carbon black in preparing carbon particles A1 ([0236] and A2 ([0238]) which corresponds to the conductive assistant in Shin. Therefore, Yamada teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount ranging from 78 wt% to 97.7 wt%, overlapping the claimed range of 70 wt% to 90 wt%.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the negative electrode active material layer with an amount of the negative active material falls within the overlapping portion (78 wt% to 90 wt%) between Yamada taught range and the claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound.
Regarding claim 7, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin further discloses the desire of achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound ([0020]). While Shin further discloses a negative electrode active material layer contains a conductive assistant and a binder as public known ([0047]); and in the background section Shin cites WO-2013/101921-A showing a binder of 5% to 25% by weight when the whole weight of the whole active material layer is set as 100% by weight ([0013]). However, Shin does not explicitly disclose the silicon-based active material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 7 wt% to 22 wt%. .
Yamada teaches to solve similar problems of insufficient discharge capacity, rate characteristics and charge-discharge efficiency ([0010-0012]) by controlling the particle size distribution of a negative electrode material containing carbonaceous particles and silicon oxide particles to be in an appropriate range ([0013]). Yamada further teaches the binder used in the negative electrode material is preferably not less than 0.2 parts by weight and not greater than 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material ([0194-0195]); thickening agent in an amount of usually 0.1 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material ([0196]); and 2.0 parts by weight of a carbon black in preparing carbon particles A1 ([0236] and A2 ([0238]) which corresponds to the conductive assistant in Shin. Therefore, Yamada teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount ranging from 78 parts to 97.7 parts with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the negative electrode active material layer with an amount of the negative active material ranging from 78 wt% to 97.7 wt% as taught by Yamada, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound.
Further, since Shin has included 20 wt% of SiOx in the negative electrode active material shown in Example 28 of Table 2, modified Shin in view of Yamada as set forth above would result in the silicon-based active material included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount ranging from 15.6 wt% to 19.5 wt%, falling within the claimed range of 7 wt% to 22 wt%.
Regarding claim 9, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Shin further discloses the desire of achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound ([0020]), Shin does not explicitly disclose D90 of the carbon-based active material is 20 µm to 50 µm.
Yamada teaches to solve similar problems of insufficient discharge capacity, rate characteristics and charge-discharge efficiency ([0010-0012]) by controlling the particle size distribution of a negative electrode material containing carbonaceous particles and silicon oxide particles to be in an appropriate range ([0013]). Yamada further teaches the d90a of the carbonaceous particles (A) is particularly preferably 20 to 30 µm ([0074]), which falls within the range as claimed “D90 of the carbon-based active material is 20 µm to 50 µm”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the negative electrode active material layer with a D90 value of 20 to 30 µm for the carbon-based active material that falls within the range as claimed “D90 of the carbon-based active material is 20 µm to 50 µm”, as taught by Yamada without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound.
Regarding claim 10, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While Shin further discloses the desire of achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound ([0020]), Shin does not explicitly disclose (D90-D10)/D50 of the carbon-based active material is 5 or less.
Yamada teaches to solve similar problems of insufficient discharge capacity, rate characteristics and charge-discharge efficiency ([0010-0012]) by controlling the particle size distribution of a negative electrode material containing carbonaceous particles and silicon oxide particles to be in an appropriate range ([0013]). Yamada further teaches the d90a of the carbonaceous particles (A) is particularly preferably 20 to 30 µm ([0074]); and d10a the carbonaceous particles (A) is particularly preferably 6 to 8 µm ([0073]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the negative electrode active material layer with a D90 value of 20 to 30 µm and D10 value of 6 to 8 µm for the carbon-based active material taught by Yamada, in light of D50 of Shin is 22.5 µm (Shin: Example 28, Table 2), which would result in a calculated value of (D90-D10)/D50 for the carbon-based active material ranging from 0.53 to 1.09, falling within the range as claimed “(D90-D10)/D50 of the carbon-based active material is 5 or less”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound.
Regarding claim 12, Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Shin further discloses the carbon-based active material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 58 wt% to 73 wt%.
Shin further discloses the desire of achieving a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery with a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound ([0020]). While Shin further discloses a negative electrode active material layer contains a conductive assistant and a binder as public known ([0047]); and in the background section Shin cites WO-2013/101921-A showing a binder of 5% to 25% by weight when the whole weight of the whole active material layer is set as 100% by weight ([0013]). However, Shin does not explicitly disclose the carbon-based active material is included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 58 wt% to 73 wt%.
Yamada teaches to solve similar problems of insufficient discharge capacity, rate characteristics and charge-discharge efficiency ([0010-0012]) by controlling the particle size distribution of a negative electrode material containing carbonaceous particles and silicon oxide particles to be in an appropriate range ([0013]). Yamada further teaches the binder used in the negative electrode material is preferably not less than 0.2 parts by weight and not greater than 10 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material ([0194-0195]); thickening agent in an amount of usually 0.1 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material ([0196]); and 2.0 parts by weight of a carbon black in preparing carbon particles A1 ([0236] and A2 ([0238]) which corresponds to the conductive assistant in Shin. Therefore, Yamada teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprises the negative electrode active material in an amount ranging from 78 parts to 97.7 parts with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode material. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the negative electrode active material layer with an amount of the negative active material ranging from 78 wt% to 97.7 wt% as taught by Yamada,
Further, since Shin has included 80 wt% of graphite in the negative electrode active material shown in Example 28 of Table 2, modified Shin in view of Yamada as set forth above would result in the carbon-based active material included in the negative electrode active material layer in an amount ranging from 62.4 wt% to 78.2 wt%, overlapping the claimed range of 58 wt% to 73 wt%.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare the negative electrode active material layer with an amount of carbon- based active material included in the negative electrode active material layer falls within the overlapping portion (62.4 wt% to 73 wt%) between the calculated range modified in view of Yamada and the claimed range, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a negative electrode active material containing silicon or a silicon compound with a high energy density by inhibiting the expansion of the battery.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/16/2026
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
