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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20120295155).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 19, Deng discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material (paragraph 79) comprising an overlithiated manganese-based oxide (see paragraph 79 which discloses an overlithiated manganese containing compound), in which an amount of manganese among total metals excluding lithium is 50 mol % or more (see composition range in paragraph 79 which discloses that the molar amount of manganese in the formula can be over 50% when β is 0.65, α is 0.1, γ is 0, for example) and a ratio (Li/Me) of a number of moles of the lithium to a number of moles of the total metals excluding the lithium is greater than 1 (the composition in paragraph 79 discloses a lithium rich composition where b can be upwards of 0.3 which would result in a ratio of lithium to the other metals of greater than 1);
a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material including a silicon-based negative electrode active material (such as silicon oxide in paragraph 96);
a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see paragraph 66 which discloses a separator); and
an electrolyte (paragraph 66),
wherein the lithium secondary battery satisfies Equation (1)
Equation (1): 0.25A≤B≤0.6A
wherein, in Equation (1), A is a discharge curve area in a voltage range of 2.0 V to 4.6 V of a dQ/dV graph obtained by differentiating a graph of battery discharge capacity Q and voltage V after one cycle which are measured while charging the lithium secondary battery at 0.1 C to 4.6 V and discharging the lithium secondary battery at 0.1 C to 2.0 V, and B is a discharge curve area in a voltage range of 2.0 V to 3.5 V of the dQ/dV graph.
The italicized portion above, along with the limitations of claim 2, recite an electrical property of a battery structure under a certain operation (charging/discharging between 4.6V to 2.0V). The instant invention states:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deng does indeed teach the same negative electrode composition (silicon oxide with a conductive carbon, see paragraphs 57-58), the same positive electrode composition (as discussed above), and the same N/P ratio (the instant invention states that the preferred N/P ratio is preferably 100-150% when a silicon oxide based electrode with carbon is utilized, see paragraph 91 of the instant published application, which overlaps the N/P ratio of Deng which states that the loading of the negative electrode over the positive electrode is 110-150%, see paragraph 139 of Deng). As such, Deng teaches a similar positive electrode composition, negative electrode composition and N/P ratio and as such, a similar discharge graph is assumed to be exhibited by Deng. 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).
While Deng does not teach the exact claimed amount of manganese relative to the total metals excluding lithium or the ratio Li/Me, it does teach an overlapping range as discussed above. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Deng discloses the overlithiated manganese-based oxide is represented by [Formula 1]:
LiaNibCocMndMeO2 [Formula 1]
wherein, in Formula 1, 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2, and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), boron (B), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), vanadium (V), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), gallium (Ga), indium (In), ruthenium (Ru), niobium (Nb), tin (Sn), strontium (Sr), and zirconium (Zr).
While Deng does not teach the exact composition range as claimed, it does teach a range of composition that overlaps the claimed range, such as:
PNG
media_image2.png
174
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Deng further discloses The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode has an initial irreversible capacity of 5% to 70% and the silicon-based negative electrode active material has an initial efficiency of 60% to 95% (see claim 9 of Deng which teaches an initial capacity loss of less than 20% which implies an initial efficiency of 80%). Furthermore, while Deng does not teach the exact claimed percentages, it does teach an overlapping range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Deng further discloses the silicon-based negative electrode active material has an average particle size of less than 8 microns (paragraph 119) but does not teach the exact claimed range of 3 μm to 8 μm. Seeing that Deng teaches an overlapping range, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, Deng further discloses the negative electrode active material further includes a carbon-based negative electrode active material (paragraphs 57-58), wherein the silicon-based negative electrode active material is a silicon oxide (paragraphs 57-58), and an N/P ratio of the lithium secondary battery is in a range of 100% to 150% (the instant invention states that the preferred N/P ratio is preferably 100-150% when a silicon oxide based electrode with carbon is utilized, see paragraph 91 of the instant published application, which overlaps the N/P ratio of Deng which states that the loading of the negative electrode over the positive electrode is 110-150%, see paragraph 139 of Deng). While Deng does not explicitly teach the exact claimed range of the N/P ratio, it does teach a ratio that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Deng further discloses the negative electrode has a multilayer structure including two or more negative electrode material mixture layers (see paragraph 133 which disclose that the negative electrode has multiple layers, including a lithium source that is mixed with a polymer binder matrix).
Regarding claim 15, Deng further discloses the negative electrode active material consists of silicon (Si), and an N/P ratio of the lithium secondary battery is in a range of 150% to 300% (Deng teaches a range of 95-180%, see paragraph 139). While Deng does not explicitly teach the exact claimed range of the N/P ratio, it does teach a ratio that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 16, Deng, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a similar cathode and anode composition as well as a similar N/P ratio. While not explicitly teaches the claimed metrics, these metrics are properties of an electrochemical cell. Seeing that Deng teaches a substantially similar composition of an electrochemical cell as that of the claimed invention, these electrical properties are assumed to also be exhibited by Deng. 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).
Regarding claim 17, Deng teaches The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the overlithiated manganese-based oxide has a two-phase crystalline structure in which a layered phase and a rock salt phase are mixed (see Formula (1) in paragraph 82 which discloses a two-phase crystalline structure in a layered-layered configuration where the Li2MnO3 is a rock-salt structure) , wherein the two-phase crystalline structure is represented by Formula 2:
X Li2MnO3●(1−X)Li[Ni1-y-z-wMnyCozMw]O2 (see formula 1 of Deng which is xLi2MnO3 (1-x)LiNiuMnvCowAyO2 where u+v+w+y=1)
wherein, in the Formula 2, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Co, W, Mg, V, Ti, Zn, Ga, In, Ru, Nb, Sn, Sr, and Zr, 0.2≤X≤0.5, 0.4≤y<1, 0≤z≤0.1, and 0≤w≤0.2 (see paragraphs 82-83 which disclose a composition range that overlaps the claimed range). While Deng does not explicitly teach the exact claimed range, it does teach a composition range that significantly overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 18, Deng further discloses the negative electrode further includes a carbon-based negative electrode active material (paragraph 97).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20120295155) in view of Wu (US 2017/0263931).
Regarding claim 5, Deng teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a silicon oxide based negative electrode and a lithium rich, manganese rich positive electrode (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above). Deng, however, is silent regarding the particle size of the positive active material.
Wu also disclose a secondary battery that comprises a lithium rich , manganese-based cathode similar to that of Deng (see abstract).
Wu goes on to teach that the particle size of this cathode active material is preferably between 1.2-12 microns (see paragraph 39). Wu teaches such a particle size to improve stability and rate capability of the battery cell (paragraph 36).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the particle size of Wu in the cathode of modified Deng in order to capture the stability and rate capability benefits described in Wu.
Furthermore, while modified Deng does not teach the exact claimed range, it does teach a range that overlaps the claimed range. As such, arriving at the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20120295155) in view of Inoue (WO 2020/188863 A1 with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Deng discloses a lithium rich cathode material, but is silent regarding the surface area of the cathode material.
Inoue also discloses a secondary battery comprising a lithium rich cathode (lines 189-197).
Inoue goes on to teach that the BET specific surface area of the positive active material may be 8m2/g or less (lines 176-173). Inoue teaches such a feature in order to achieve the desired discharge capacity (lines 266-273).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the surface area of Inoue in the cathode of modified Deng in order to achieve the desired discharge capacity.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20120295155) in view of Venkatachalam (US 2019/0207209).
Regarding claim 8, Deng is silent regarding the electrode density of the positive electrode. More specifically, Deng does not teach wherein the positive electrode has an electrode density of 2.5 g/cc to 3.8 g/cc.
Venkatachalam also discloses a battery (see abstract).
Venkatachalam, like Deng, teaches a battery comprising a silicon oxide-based anode (paragraph 95) along with a manganese rich, overlithiated positive active material (paragraph 103). Venkatachalam goes on to teach that the preferred electrode density of the positive electrode is between 2.5-4.6 g/cc (paragraph 113). Venkatachalam teaches the loading density is responsible for good energy density performance (paragraph 58).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the electrode density of Venkatachalam in the positive electrode of modified Deng in order to maximize function along with energy density.
Regarding claim 10, Deng teaches the inclusion of conductive additive in the negative electrode (paragraph 100) but does not explicitly state that this conductive additive/agent comprises single-walled carbon nanotubes.
Venkatachalam, like Deng, teaches the inclusion of a conductive additive in the negative active material (paragraph 85). Venkatachalam teaches a number of carbon conductive materials that are known to be effective in negative electrodes, including single walled carbon nanotubes (see paragraph 85).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the single walled carbon nanotubes of Venkatachalam to the negative electrode of modified Deng as such a modification is nothing more than a simple substitution of one known conductive carbon compound for another to yield entirely predictable results and still enhancing conductivity within the electrode.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20120295155) in view of Zhang (WO 2014/032407 A1 with references made to the machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Deng teaches the presences of a porosity within the negative active material (paragraph 100), but is silent regarding what this porosity is. More specifically, Deng does not teach a negative electrode active material layer which has a porosity of 20% to 70%.
Zhang, like Deng, teaches a negative active material layer that comprises with a silicon oxide and a carbon-based conductive material (lines 100-103). Zhang goes on to teach that the porosity of the negative electrode is preferably between 20-70% as such a porosity provides the needed pore space to expand the silicon material (lines 200-209).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the 20-70% porosity of Zhang in the negative electrode of Deng in order to ensure that the silicon based negative electrode has enough void space to expand as a result of lithium intercalation.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2021/0119208 – Discloses an overlithiated positive active material with a Li/Me over 1, similar to the claimed invention.
US 2012/0107680 – Discloses a lithium-rich cathode active material comprising manganese and a 2-phase structure similar to the disclosed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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 J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights