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 § 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.
Claim 8 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 8 recites, “The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7, comprising an electrode assembly including the negative electrode, wherein a ratio T/D of a thickness T of the electrode assembly to a distance D between the electrode assembly and the exterior package is 2% or more at a voltage of 3 V or less.” It is unclear if a distance D of the exterior package is to be taken from a side, bottom or top surface of the exterior package.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (US2022/0037640A1), in view of Uehara et al.(US2019/0305375A1), and in further view of Put et al. (US2018/0083271A1).
As to claim 1, Tsuzuki discloses a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the negative electrode comprising a current collector [Abstract], a first active material layer (region 42(a) containing 5-25% Si material [0037] fig. 2), and a second active material layer (42(b) containing 20% or less Si material [0037] fig. 2) that are provided in this order (fig. 2),
wherein the first active material layer (42(a)) includes first silicon-containing particles, Tsuzuki discloses a negative active material for example, a structure in which fine Si is dispersed in the matric of amorphous SiO2 [0033], but does not explicitly teach Si particles. In the same field of endeavor Uehara discloses a negative electrode for a battery [Abstract], and teaches for example. SiO.sub.x has, for example, a structure in which Si fine particles are dispersed in amorphous SiO.sub.2.[Uehara, 0025], and it would be obvious to substitute the fine Si particles in SiO.sub.x of Uehara for the fine Si dispersed in SiO2 of Tsuzuki as the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.),
each of the first silicon-containing particles and the second silicon-containing particles contains a carbon domain (The active material includes graphite particles [Tsuzuki, 0033]) Tsuzuki does not explicitly disclose, and a silicon domain dispersed in the carbon domain and having a nano size, however in the same field of endeavor Put discloses an anode for a battery [Abstract] and teaches (Composite powder for use in an anode of a lithium ion battery, whereby the particles of the composite powder comprise a carbon-based matrix material and silicon particles embedded in this matrix material, and the silicon particles have an average particle size of 500 nm or less [Put, 0053] ). Put further teaches, the composite powder according to the invention has a better cycle performance than traditional powders. [Put, 0017].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tsuzuki with the composite powder as taught by Put to achieve better cycle performance.
each of the first binder and the second binder contains carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) [Tsuzuki, 0027], and a content ratio of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the second active material layer (42(b)) is more than a content ratio of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the first active material layer (42(a)). (Molecular weight of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the region 42a is 33,000 or less [Tsuzuki, 0030], and Molecular weight of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the region 42b is 33,000 or more [Tsuzuki, 0031]. Providing a higher carboxymethyl cellulose content ratio in the second active material layer (42(b)).
As to claim 2, Tsuzuki discloses the content ratio of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the second active material layer is 0.7 wt% or more and 3 wt% or less, and the content ratio of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the first active material layer is 0.5 wt% or more and 1.5 wt% or less. The content of the carboxymethyl cellulose in each of the regions of the negative electrode active material is, for example, preferably 0.5% by mass to 3% by mass based on the total mass of the negative electrode active material layer 42. [0032]). It should be noted in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 3, Tsuzuki does not explicitly disclose each of the first silicon-containing particles and the second silicon-containing particles is constituted of the carbon domain and the silicon domain having a size of 50 nm or less, and has an oxygen content ratio of 7 wt% or less. Put teaches silicon powder with a diameter of 35 nm and oxygen content of 1.0% (Example 2 [0105, 0107].
Put further teaches, the composite powder according to the invention has a better cycle performance than traditional powders. [Put, 0017].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tsuzuki with the composite powder as taught by Put to achieve better cycle performance.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (US2022/0037640A1), in view of Uehara et al.(US2019/0305375A1), in view of Put et al. (US2018/0083271A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. (US2021/0194002A1).
As to claim 4, modified Tsuzuki discloses, wherein the first active material layer includes first graphite particles, the second active material layer includes second graphite particles, but does not teach and each of a BET specific surface area of the first graphite particles and a BET specific surface area of the second graphite particles is 3.5 m2/g or less, and each of a particle size distribution (D90-D10)/(D50) of the first graphite particles and a particle size distribution (D90-D10)/(D50) of the second graphite particles is 1.2 or more. Put teaches (d.sub.90−d.sub.10)/d.sub.50 is 3 or lower. [0022]), and it should be noted in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the same field of endeavor Matsuo discloses negative electrode for a battery [Abstract] and teaches, a BET specific surface area of the second graphite particles is 3.5 m2/g or less, (Second carbon-based active material… for example, 2.5 m.sup.2/g to 8.0 m.sup.2/g. [0034]), and it should be noted in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Matsuo further teaches the present disclosure provides a negative electrode which improves the input characteristics, cyclic characteristics, and high-temperature storage characteristics of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0005]. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Tsuzuki with the BET specific surface area of the second graphite particles as taught by Matsuo to improve the battery input characteristics, cyclic characteristics, and high-temperature storage characteristics.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (US2022/0037640A1), in view of Uehara et al.(US2019/0305375A1), in view of Put et al. (US2018/0083271A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN112310346A)).
As to claim 5, Tsuzuki discloses, the negative electrode active material layer 42 may include a conductive agent… conductive agent may be a carbon nanotube [0040] but does not explicitly teach each of the first active material layer and the second active material layer includes a single-walled carbon nanotube. In the same field of endeavor Chen discloses an negative electrode for a battery [Abstract] and teaches, (negative active material may contain a first and second conductive agent [0230-0232]… and the first and second conductive agent may single-wall carbon nano-tube [0360-0363]). Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use conductive agent of Chen because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.) and at the time of the invention single-wall carbon nanotubes were known to be used as a conductive agent.
As to claim 6, Tsuzuki discloses a molecular weight of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the second active material layer is more than a molecular weight of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the first active material layer. (Molecular weight of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the region (42(a)) is 33,000 or less [Tsuzuki, 0030], and Molecular weight of the carboxymethyl cellulose in the region (42(b)) is 33,000 or more [Tsuzuki, 0031]. Providing a higher carboxymethyl cellulose content ratio in the second active material layer (42(b)).
As to claim 7, modified Tsuzuki discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [Abstract] comprising: the negative electrode according to claim 1; and an exterior package (Case body (16), [0019] fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. (US2022/0037640A1), in view of Uehara et al.(US2019/0305375A1), in view of Put et al. (US2018/0083271A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Catotti et al. (US4,929,519A1).
As to claim 8, Tsuzuki discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 7 comprising an electrode assembly including the negative electrode, wherein a ratio T/D of a thickness T of the electrode assembly to a distance D between the electrode assembly and the exterior package is 2% or more at a voltage of 3 V or less. In the same field of endeavor Catotti discloses an electrode for a battery ([C2L56-68], [C7L44-48], and teaches, the amount of additional electrochemically active material and the increase in electrical capacity of a given electrochemical cell are a function of the thickness of each component of the wound electrode assembly, and the diameter of the container into which the assembly is positioned [C6L9-14]. Where the thickness of the positive electrode is 0.03 inch, negative electrode is 0.021 inch, and the separator is 0.006 inch and an arbor diameter of 0.187 inch [C6L18-21], and allowing for a thickness across the entire electrode assembly would be twice a single thickness yields 2X(the sum of the individual thicknesses 0.057 inch) or 0.114 inch, and the ratio thickness of the electrode (0.114 inch) to the diameter of the can 0.187 would be about 60%, and where 3V or less includes 0V meets the limitation. It would be obvious to optimize the ratio of T/D to achieve a desired battery electrical capacity. It should be noted, “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 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Omaru et al. (US5,916,707) Case with width ratio to electrode assembly
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728