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
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/18/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there exists no undue administrative burden for the Examiner to search and consider all claims in their entirety. This is not found persuasive because Applicant's traversal is based on search and examination burden. However, the groups are not considered to have unity of invention based on
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive because the groups still lack unity of invention as the common technical features of, at most, a negative electrode composition (claim 1), is not a special technical feature, in view of over Ogino et al (US 20150132649 A1) and Nakano (US20200235403A1), as addressed in the rejections below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-2, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al (US 20150132649 A1) in view of Nakano (US20200235403A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 5, Ogino discloses a negative electrode composition (i.e. negative electrode active material layer, [0071]) comprising:
a silicon-containing active material comprising silicon-containing active material particles (i.e. silicon used as the negative electrode active material particles, [0098]) and graphene ([0079]) wherein the graphene has a structure wrapping a surface of the silicon-containing active material particles (i.e. plurality of graphene flakes is formed in such a way as to wrap, coat, or adhere to surfaces of plurality of negative electrode active material particles, [0079]); and a negative electrode binder ([0073];[0095]).
Ogino further discloses the negative electrode active material layer, in addition to including graphene flakes ([0079]), may further include various conductive additives such as carbon particles (i.e. negative electrode conductive material, [0082]).
Ogino further discloses wherein silicon (i.e. SiOx, x = 0) is used as the negative electrode active material particles ([0098]), and that as an example the ratio of the negative electrode active material particles to graphene oxide to binder can be 80:5:15 wt% ([0095]) but does not appear to be limited to such a composition. While Ogino teaches graphene oxide reduces to graphene and that the weight of graphene obtained by reducing graphene oxide is approximately half of the graphene oxide ([0106]), Ogino does not explicitly disclose an electrode active material composition following the reduction of graphene oxide.
Nevertheless, Nakano teaches a similar active material in which anode particles (i.e. silicon particles, [0048], second example) are coated with graphene in which the composition was 90% active material (i.e. silicon) and 10% graphene by weight ([0048], second example).
90% active material (i.e. silicon particles, SiOx where x =0) by weight falls within the claimed range 90 parts by weight or more of SiOx (x=0) on the basis of 100 parts by weight of the silicon-containing active material, as claimed in claim 1.
10% by weight graphene falls within the claimed range of 0.1 part by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less on the basis of 100 parts by weight of the silicon-containing active material, as claimed in claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed ranges with reasonable expectation of achieving a satisfactory anode.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ogino discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ogino further discloses that the ratio of the negative electrode active material particles to graphene oxide to binder can be 80:5:15 wt% (Ogino, [0095]).
As the silicon-containing active material comprises both silicon particles and graphene, the silicon-containing active material is thus at least 85 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition, which is within the claimed range of 60 parts by weight or more.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ogino discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ogino further discloses wherein the size of the silicon-containing active material particles (i.e. silicon particles) are preferably greater than or equal to 0.0001 µm and less than or equal to 7 µm ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm to 10 µm.
Modified Ogino further discloses that in the case where the size of the silicon particles is large, the conductive additive and silicon particles are insufficiently dispersed, such that a conductive path is lost by expansion of silicon and capacity is reduced (Ogino, [0089]). Conversely, too small silicon particles lead to an increase in the surface area of the particles and promotes the decomposition reaction of the electrolytic solution, reducing charge/discharge efficiency and lowering capacity (Ogino, [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the size of the active material particles, with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful negative electrode and in order to achieve the desired balance between capacity and efficiency of the active material.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al (US 20150132649 A1) in view of Nakano (US20200235403A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (KR20200027787A, see English language equivalent US20210328225A1 for citations, cited in IDS filed 01/22/2024).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Ogino discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ogino discloses the negative electrode active material layer may further include various additional conductive additives, for example carbon particles (i.e. point-type conductive material) such as acetylene black particles and ketjen black particles, and carbon nanofibers (Ogino, [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further select acetylene black particles or ketjen black particles as point-type conductive materials as claimed in claim 3, with reasonable expectation in achieving a satisfactory negative electrode since these are common conductive materials, as suggested by Ogino.
Modified Ogino does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrode conductive material comprises a planar conductive material and linear conductive material, wherein the negative electrode conductive material comprises 90 parts by weight or more and 99.99 parts by weight or less of the planar conductive material, and 0.01 part by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less of the linear conductive material, on the basis of 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode conductive material, as claimed in claim 4.
Kim teaches a similar negative electrode active material layer ([0010]) wherein the conductive agent includes carbon nanotubes and a graphite-type conductive agent ([0010]).
Kim further teaches that carbon nanotubes may act to improve conductivity of the negative electrode and when used with the graphite-type conductive agent, the conductive agent can be smoothly dispersed in the negative electrode slurry without increasing the viscosity of the slurry too much ([0038]). Furthermore, Kim teaches the graphite conductive agent improves conductivity by increasing planar contacts between silicon particles and suppresses the disconnection of the conductive path due to volume change ([0044]).
Kim further teaches carbon nanotubes may be classified into single-walled carbon nanotubes, double-walled carbon nanotubes or multi-walled carbon nanotubes, all of which are considered linear conductive materials (see instant specifications, [0073]). Kim teaches the graphite conductive agent may be selected from the group consisting of plate-shaped graphite, graphene, graphene oxide, and graphite flakes, which are considered planar conductive materials (see instant specifications, [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further select a linear conductive material such as carbon nanotubes and a planar conductive material as conductive materials as claimed in claims 3 and 4, for the benefit of improving conductivity of the negative electrode, as taught by Kim.
Kim further teaches the weight ratio of the carbon nanotubes to the graphite-type conductive agent (i.e. graphene) may be in a range of 6:94 to 30:70 as when this range is satisfied, the viscosity and viscoelasticity of the negative electrode slurry is stable. Additionally, Kim teaches carbon nanotubes excessively increases viscosity while the graphite-type conductive agent may increase the flowability of the negative electrode slurry without increasing viscosity.
Kim’s taught ratios teach 6 to 30 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes (i.e. linear conductive material) on the basis of 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode conductive material, which overlaps with the claimed 0.01 to 10 parts by weight.
Similarly, Kim’s taught ratios teach 70 to 94 parts by weight of graphite-type conductive agent (i.e. planar conductive ratio) on the basis of 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode current collector, which overlaps with the claimed 90 to 99.99 parts by weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges, with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful anode active material and to achieve the desired balance between viscosity and flowability of the electrode slurry, as taught by Kim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al (US 20150132649 A1) in view of Nakano (US20200235403A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (US20220271289A1, cited in IDS filed 01/22/2024).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ogino discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Ogino further discloses a plurality of graphene flakes that are formed in such a way as to wrap, coat, or adhere to surfaces of negative electrode active material particles (Ogino, [0079]) and that the graphene flakes are thin films having a thickness corresponding to the thickness of a single layer or multilayer of carbon molecules ([0079]).
However, modified Ogino does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the graphene being in the range of 1 nm or greater and 20 nm or less.
Lee teaches a similar negative active material comprising of a shell formed of a carbon film ([0016]) wherein the carbon film may consist of graphene ([0099]). Lee further teaches the content of carbon may have an average thickness of 5 nm to 100 nm, specifically 10 nm to 150 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 nm to 20 nm.
Furthermore, Lee teaches that if the thickness of the carbon film is 5 nm or more, an enhancement in conductivity may be achieved, and if the thickness of the carbon film is 200 nm or less, a decrease in capacity of the secondary battery may be suppressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the thickness of the graphene, in order to achieve the desired balance between conductivity and capacity, as taught by Lee (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 PM.
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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights