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
The preliminary amendment submitted 01/23/2024 was received and is being examined on its merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 01/23/2024, 0806/2025, and 01/14/2026 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 01/23/2024 were received and are approved by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Carbon Materials for Negative Electrode Active Materials Within Secondary Batteries and Battery Pack.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. 20230183073).
With respect to claims 1-6 and 15-20, Song discloses a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode plate (piece) ([0124]), the negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode current collector (copper foil) and a negative electrode active material layer (mixture/slurry) disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (copper foil) ([0124]), the negative electrode active material layer comprising a negative electrode active material (modified graphite) ([0124]), the negative electrode active material comprising a carbon material (graphite) ([0124]).
The remainder of claim 1 limits the grain size of the active material to “XS,” but gives no value for XS. Thus Song detailing the method of creating a modified graphite active material ([0103]) would inherently possess a grain size, thus reading on “XS.” Similarly, claim 1 limits a non-Faraday capacitance of the negative electrode plate as “Cdl,” but gives no value for Cdl. Thus Song detailing the creating of a negative electrode plate ([0124]) would inherently possess a non-Faraday capacitance, thus reading on “Cdl.”
The final limitation of claim 1 limits a relationship of the grain size (XS) to the non-Faraday capacitance (Cdl) of the negative electrode plate. Applicant is reminded that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The below sections will map the instant application products and processes with those of the prior art to show that the claimed properties, i.e. the relationship between XS and Cdl are known in the art.
In the instance of the active material, the instant application details a method of forming “an artificial graphite” using a coke precursor with a starting particle size of (8-10) 9 micrometers [0143]. The coke is then subject to a graphitization treatment at 3000℃ for 48 hours to obtain artificial graphite with a particle size of 13 micrometers ([0143]), although it is noted elsewhere in the specification that the graphitization treatment can be applied for 30 hours to 60 hours ([0093]). In the prior art, Song discloses the formation of modified graphite using a coke precursor with a starting particle size of 6-9 micrometers ([0103]). The coke is then subject to a graphitization treatment at 3000℃ for 60 hours to obtain artificial graphite with a particle size of 9 micrometers ([0143]), thus approaching the preferred range of the instant application. It is noted by the examiner that there are examples in which the average particle size after the graphitization treatment is in the preferred range (Examples 2, 5, and 9). Although grain size is not explicitly stated in the prior art, as the starting materials and their size, and the treatment applied to the materials to obtain artificial graphite are the substantially identical, the resultant grain size of the graphite would inherently be very similar. Thus the graphite prepared by the prior art would inherently possess the same properties as that of the instant application, thus reading on the grain size of claims 2/16, the pore volume of claims 4/18, the powder resistivity of claims 6/20, the particle dispersion degree (A) of claim 7.
Meanwhile, the claimed Cdl is discussed in terms of the electrode plate as a whole, not just the active material (artificial graphite). Not only does Song disclose the same artificial graphite as the instant application, but teaches the importance of a uniform carbon-based coating layer on the artificial graphite ([0015]), which is substantially identical to the coated graphite disclosed by the applicant ([0144]). Additionally, in order to form the electrode plate, both Song and the prior art disclose the super of a carbon-based conductive agent, styrene-butadiene rubber, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose in a solvent system to form the slurry ([0144]). In both the prior art and the instant application, the slurry was then applied to a copper foil as the current collectors and dried ([0124]). As the materials and formation of the negative electrode plate are substantially identical, then the properties possessed by each of the plates would be inherently the same. Thus the non-Faraday capacitance (Cdl) of the electrode plate disclosed by Song would be inherently the same as that of the instant application. As such, the claimed relationships between Cdl and grain size (claims 1/15), Cdl and pore volume (claims 3/17), and Cdl and powder resistivity (claims 5/19) would also be inherently present in the prior art.
With respect to claim 7, Song discloses the secondary battery further comprises a positive electrode plate (piece) ([0067]), the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer (film) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector ([0067]), and the positive electrode active material layer (film) comprises a positive electrode active material ([0067]). The particle dispersion degree of the negative electrode has already been proven to read on the claimed range inherently in the above rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Song does not disclose the particle degree of dispersion of the positive electrode active material. However, Song does disclose substantially identical product and processes of forming the positive electrode active material as that of the instant application. For example, Song discloses the same active material components including LiNi.sub.0.8Co.sub.0.1Mn.sub.0.1O.sub.2 (also referred to as NCM.sub.811) ([0070]), carbon black as a conductive agent ([0070]), and PVDF as a binder ([0070]) unfirmly mixed and dissolved in N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) as a solvent ([0073]). Further, Song discloses substantially identical weight ratios of the conductive agent, binder, and active material (64:3:3 – [0125] compared to the instant application 96:2:2). Thus the particle degree of dispersion of the positive electrode active material would be inherently in the claimed range.
With respect to claim 9, it has already been demonstrated in the above rejections of claims 7 and 8 that the ranges of the particle dispersion degrees of the positive and negative electrode active material are inherent in Song, thus the relationship between the two limited by claim 9 would also be inherent.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tokuda et al. (U.S. 20130071731).
With respect to claims 10-12, Song discloses positive and negative electrode active material layers (see above rejection of claims 1 and 7), but does not disclose the thickness of each of the layers.
Tokuda discloses a negative electrode active material layer comprising carbon ([abstract]) and a positive electrode active material layer ([0076]) and teaches the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness (C) of 30 to 250 micrometers ([0289]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 99 to 160 micrometers and reading on claim 10 and that the positive electrode active material layer has a thickness (D) of 20 to 450 micrometers ([0333]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 80 to 130 micrometers and reading on claim 11. These combined ranges satisfy the relationship between the thickness 1-(D/C) = 1-20/30 = 0.33, which falls in the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.5. Tokuda further teaches these thicknesses provide high capacity and high output ([0333]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the thicknesses of the positive and negative active material layers disclosed by Song were in the ranges taught by Tokuda in order to provide high capacity and high output.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 20150044556).
With respect to claim 13, Song discloses a surface of the negative electrode active material is coated with a first coating layer ([0015]), but does not disclose the thickness of the coating layer.
Wang discloses a negative electrode active material ([0032]) and teaches the negative electrode active material can comprise a carbon-based coating with a thickness of less than 10 nm ([0070]), thus overlapping the clamed range of 5 to 200 nm. Wang further teaches that yield negative electrodes with good thermal and electrical conductivity ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the thicknesses of the coating of the negative electrode active material disclosed by Song was in the range taught by Wang in order to yield electrodes with good thermal and electrical conductivity.
It is noted that the non-Faraday capacitance (Cdl) has already been shown to be an inherent property in the prior art (see above rejection of claim 1). Therefore, the relationship between the coating thickness and Cdl is also inherently present in the prior art.
With respect to claim 14, Song discloses a positive electrode active material (see above rejection of claim 7), but does not disclose the active includes a coating.
Wang discloses a cathode active material with a coating ([0140]) and teaches the coating is in the range of 1 to 100 nm ([0140]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 60 nm. Wang further teaches that this range enables fast electron and lithium ion transport, yet still providing a high active material content and being conducive to the formation of electrodes with a desired thickness ([0140]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the inclusion of a coating in the range taught by Wang to the positive electrode active material disclosed by Song in order to enable fast electron and lithium ion transport, yet still providing a high active material content and being conducive to the formation of electrodes with a desired thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights