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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0335794 A1), further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0259208 A1), Cha et al. (US 2019/0252673 A1), Takehara et al. (US 2009/0286155 A1), and Byong et al. (KR 2017/0034724 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery with a current collector on which one or both sides may have active material disposed (Paragraph [0046]).
Kim does not teach an exposed region of current collector without negative electrode active material. Yamamoto teaches a negative electrode current collector with a non-coated portion in which the negative electrode active material is not formed and the current collector is exposed (Paragraph [0050]).
Kim teaches a negative electrode slurry which contains an active material, a conductive material, and a binder (Paragraph [0097]). Kim also teaches the negative electrode active material may be a graphite-based active material particle or a silicon-based active material particle (Paragraph [0048]).
With respect to Equation 1, Kim does not teach all variables. Takehara teaches an A1 value of uncoated negative electrode current collector of 30 mm width, interchangeable with length per the square electrode produced in the example (Paragraph [1410]). Kim teaches an A2 value of 10 μm thickness for a negative electrode current collector (Paragraph [0097]). Yamamoto teaches a B1 value of 300 mg/25cm2 weight loading of negative electrode slurry which can be calculated from the negative electrode active material density of 1.5 g/cm3 and thickness of 80 μm (Paragraph [0051]). Cha teaches a B2 value of 5 wt % binder used in the negative electrode active material (Paragraph [0061]). The resulting value of Equation 1 is 20.
No references explicitly teach Equation 1 of the instant application. However, Byong teaches improving the deterioration of battery performance by accommodating volume changes caused by gas generation in an anode active material during charging and discharging of the battery (Paragraph [0012]) by controlling the volume of the non-coated negative electrode when the active material layer contains a silicon-based active material (Paragraph [0045]). No references teach Equation 1 having a solution of 10 or higher. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratios of uncoated current collector length, current collector thickness, weight loading of negative electrode active material, and binder content in the active material since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed parameter of Equation 1’s solution is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the solution of Equation 1 motivated by (1) the known and well-understood expansion properties of silicon anodes in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, (2) the teachings of Kim, Takehara, Yamamoto, and Cha in regards to desirable values for each variable in Equation 1, and (3) the desire to control the variables in relation to each other in order to accommodate features that would improve battery performance as taught by Byong.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches a silicon-based active material particle, at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Si, SiOx (0<x<2), Si-C composite, and Si-Y alloys where Y is an element selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, a transition metal, a Group 13 element, a Group 14 element, a rare earth element, and a combination thereof (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim does not teach the fraction of silicon-containing active material in the active material composition. Yamamoto teaches a silicon-containing negative electrode active material (Paragraph [0050]) and a ratio of negative electrode active material in the entire negative electrode active material layer of 50% by mass or more (Paragraph [0051]). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Kim teaches 10 μm thickness for a negative electrode current collector (Paragraph [0097]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Kim does not teach the weight loading amount of the negative electrode slurry. Yamamoto teaches 20 mg/25cm2 to 300 mg/25cm2 weight loading of negative electrode slurry which can be calculated from the negative electrode active material densities of 0.8 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3 and thicknesses of 10 to 80 μm (Paragraph [0051]). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches a lithium secondary battery using the negative electrode of Claim 1, with a positive electrode and separator between the positive and negative electrodes (Example 5 and 6, Paragraphs [0094-0101]).
Regarding Claims 11-14, Kim does not teach all variables. Takehara teaches an A1 value of uncoated negative electrode current collector of 30 mm width, interchangeable with length per the square electrode produced in the example (Paragraph [1410]). Kim teaches an A2 value of 10 μm thickness for a negative electrode current collector (Paragraph [0097]). Yamamoto teaches a B1 value of 300 mg/25cm2 weight loading of negative electrode slurry which can be calculated from the negative electrode active material density of 1.5 g/cm3 and thickness of 80 μm (Paragraph [0051]). Cha teaches a B2 value of 5 wt % binder used in the negative electrode active material (Paragraph [0061]). The resulting value of Equation 1 is 20. The teachings of Takehara, Kim, Yamamoto, and Cha would have been obvious to combine for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at values that would satisfy Equation 1 at all claimed ranges.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0335794 A1), further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0259208 A1), Cha et al. (US 2019/0252673 A1), Takehara et al. (US 2009/0286155 A1), and Byong et al. (KR 2017/0034724 A) as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, and 8-16 above, and further in view of Joo et al. (US 2021/0005879 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Kim does not teach the amount of silicon in the silicon-containing active material composition. Joo teaches silicon-containing negative electrode active material comprising an amount of silicon material (e.g., Si and/or SiOx) in the amount of 70 wt. % or more (Paragraph [0092]). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0335794 A1), further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0259208 A1), Cha et al. (US 2019/0252673 A1), Takehara et al. (US 2009/0286155 A1), and Byong et al. (KR 2017/0034724 A) as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, and 8-16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0274147 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim does not teach a fraction of negative electrode conductive material in the active material composition. Lee teaches a conductive material amount of 1 to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of doped silicon oxide active material (Paragraph [0018]). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches benefits and costs of a linear conductive material such as carbon nanotubes (Paragraph [0005]), and benefits and costs of a planar conductive material such as graphene (Paragraph [0007]). Kim also teaches combining carbon black as a dot-type conductive material with carbon nanotubes as a linear conductive material to further improve conductivity. Kim uses graphene as a desirable conductive material in Example 1 (Paragraph [0075]). Kim does not use linear conductive material in any examples. Lee teaches the desirable performance result of a linear conductive material in the Experimental Example (Paragraph [0115]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine conductive material types per the teachings of Kim and Lee to yield expected desirable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0335794 A1), further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2020/0259208 A1), Cha et al. (US 2019/0252673 A1), Takehara et al. (US 2009/0286155 A1), and Byong et al. (KR 2017/0034724 A) as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, and 8-16 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0037644 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim does not teach a water-based binder or its parts by weight in the negative electrode active material composition. Park teaches a water-based binder that is 1 to 10 wt % with respect to the total weight of the negative electrode active material layer (Paragraph [0086]). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights