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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-4 (i.e. Group I) in the reply filed on 09/11/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, non-elected Claims 5-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
Claim 1 recites that “when” a coverage of a surface of the Si-based negative electrode active material with the carbon nanotubes is as claimed, a coverage of a surface of the carbon-based negative electrode active material with the carbon nanotubes is as claimed. Claim 1 is therefore rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if the claimed surfaces are in fact covered with the claimed carbon nanotubes. Although it is evident that the claimed coverage metrics are present “when” the carbon nanotubes cover the claimed surfaces, Claim 1 does not explicitly recite that the surfaces if the Si-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials “are” covered with carbon nanotubes in the first place. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the carbon nanotubes cover, to at least some degree, a surface of both the Si-based negative electrode active material and the carbon-based negative electrode active material.
Claim 1 recites the instantly claimed surface coverage values (100, greater than or equal to 20, less than or equal to 50). However, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as the lack of units associated with the coverage values and/or a lack of explanation in Claim 1 of how said values are explicitly derived, calculated, and/or determined renders the physical structure of the claimed negative electrode unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0110722).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Abstract, [0098], [0100]). Lee teaches that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode mixture layer formed on a negative current collector ([0093]). Lee teaches that the negative electrode mixture layer comprises a silicon-based negative electrode active material, a carbon-based negative electrode active material, and carbon nanotubes, wherein the silicon-based negative electrode active material and the carbon-based negative electrode active material are in the form of a composite particle ([0025], [0043]-[0045]). Lee teaches that the carbon nanotubes cover a part of or all of the surface of the composite particle (and a part or all of the surface of the silicon-based negative electrode active material and a part or all of the surface of the carbon-based negative electrode active material) ([0034]).
Furthermore, given that (1) the instant Claim recites the instantly claimed surface coverage with unitless values, (2) the instant Claim provides no explanation on how the instantly claimed surface coverage value are derived, calculated, and/or determined, and (3) the instant Claim requires the claimed surface coverage values when “a coverage” of “a surface” of the materials are covered as claimed, then “a coverage” of “a surface” of the carbon-based negative electrode active material of Lee with the carbon nanotubes may readily be considered and/or deemed as greater than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to 50 when “a coverage” of “a” corresponding “surface” of the silicon-based negative electrode active material is considered and/or deemed as 100.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Lee teaches that the negative electrode is comprised in a lithium ion secondary battery.
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0110722), and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2021/020939, using the equivalent US 2022/0238886 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Lee does not explicitly teach that the carbon nanotubes exhibit an average length and average bundle diameter in accordance with the instantly claimed ranges.
However, it is first noted that Lee teaches that the carbon nanotubes may be formed of single walled carbon nanotubes ([0036]).
Furthermore, Kim teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer (Abstract). Kim teaches that the negative electrode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material, a carbon-based active material, and carbon nanotubes ([0028], [0043], [0046]-[0047]). In particular, Kim teaches that the carbon nanotubes are formed as bundles of single walled carbon nanotubes ([0047]-[0048]). Kim teaches that the bundles have an average diameter of 2-200 nm (i.e. 0.002-0.2 microns), wherein such a diameter enhances the formation of conductive networks and helps provide for excellent electrical conductivity ([0054]). Furthermore, Kim teaches that the carbon nanotubes of the bundles have an average length of 1-100 microns, wherein such a length helps form long conductive paths and maximize conductivity characteristics ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the carbon nanotubes of Lee as bundles of single walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Kim, having an average length of 1-100 microns and an average bundle diameter of 0.002-0.2 microns, as also taught by Kim, given that such characteristics would help enhance the formation of conductive networks, provide for improved electrical conductivity, form long conductive paths, and maximize conductivity characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Lee does not explicitly teach that a content of the carbon nanotubes is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, it is first noted that Lee teaches that the carbon nanotubes may be formed of single walled carbon nanotubes ([0036]).
Furthermore, Kim teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer (Abstract). Kim teaches that the negative electrode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material, a carbon-based active material, and carbon nanotubes ([0028], [0043], [0046]-[0047]). In particular, Kim teaches that the carbon nanotubes are formed as bundles of single walled carbon nanotubes ([0047]-[0048]). Kim teaches that the carbon nanotubes are present in an amount of 0.01-1.0 wt% based on a total amount of the negative electrode active material layer, wherein such a content improves battery life characteristics while maintaining a low electrode resistance ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the carbon nanotubes of Lee as bundles of single walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Kim, present in an amount of 0.01-1.0 wt% (i.e. 0.01-1.0 mass%) based on a total amount of the negative electrode mixture layer, as also taught by Kim, given that such a content of the carbon nanotubes would help improve battery life characteristics while maintaining a low electrode resistance. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights