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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LV (US 2023/0146812).
As to claim 1, LV discloses a negative electrode plate (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout), comprising: a negative current collector (figure 1, copper foil, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout), a first negative active material layer (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout), and a second negative active material layer (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout); in a thickness direction of the negative electrode plate (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout), the first negative active material layer is located between the second negative active material layer and the negative current collector (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout); the first negative active material layer comprises a first negative active material (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout); the second negative active material layer comprises a second negative active material (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], discussed throughout); and an interlayer spacing of the first negative active material is smaller than an interlayer spacing of the second negative active material ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges because alpha can be 1). 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).
As to claim 2, LV discloses wherein, a ratio of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material to the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material falls within a range of 1.1 to 1.8 ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges). 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).
As to claim 3, LV discloses wherein, the ratio of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material to the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material falls within a range of 1.1 to 1.3 ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges). 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).
As to claim 4, LV discloses wherein, the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material is in the range of 0.34 nm to 0.42 nm; and the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material is in the range of 0.37 nm to 0.61 nm ([0020], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 5, LV discloses wherein, the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material is in the range of 0.34 nm to 0.37 nm; and the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material is in the range of 0.37 nm to 0.45 nm ([0020], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 6, LV discloses wherein, an undercoat layer is applied onto the negative current collector (figure 1, the active material on the other side, discussed throughout).
As to claim 7, LV discloses wherein, the undercoat layer comprises at least one of conductive carbon, carbon nanotubes, or graphene ([0080], discussed throughout).
As to claim 8, LV discloses wherein, the first negative active material and the second negative active material each are one independently selected from the group consisting of soft carbon, hard carbon, artificial graphite, and natural graphite ([0023], discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, LV discloses a battery cell, comprising a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate; and the negative electrode plate is the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (figure 3 #5, [0056], discussed throughout).
As to claim 10, LV discloses wherein, a ratio of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material to the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material falls within a range of 1.1 to 1.8 ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges). 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).
As to claim 11, LV discloses wherein, the ratio of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material to the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material falls within a range of 1.1 to 1.3 ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges). 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).
As to claim 12, LV discloses wherein, the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material is in the range of 0.34 nm to 0.42 nm; and the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material is in the range of 0.37 nm to 0.61 nm ([0020], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 13, LV discloses wherein, the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material is in the range of 0.34 nm to 0.37 nm; and the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material is in the range of 0.37 nm to 0.45 nm ([0020], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 14, LV discloses wherein, an undercoat layer is applied onto the negative current collector (figure 1, the active material on the other side, discussed throughout).
As to claim 15, LV discloses wherein, the undercoat layer comprises at least one of conductive carbon, carbon nanotubes, or graphene ([0080], discussed throughout).
As to claim 16, LV discloses wherein, the first negative active material and the second negative active material each are one independently selected from the group consisting of soft carbon, hard carbon, artificial graphite, and natural graphite ([0023], discussed throughout).
As to claim 17, LV discloses a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 9 (figure 4 #4, [0027], discussed throughout).
As to claim 18, LV discloses wherein, a ratio of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material to the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material falls within a range of 1.1 to 1.8 ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges). 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).
As to claim 19, LV discloses wherein, the ratio of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material to the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material falls within a range of 1.1 to 1.3 ([0005]-[0008], discussed throughout, overlapping ranges). 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).
As to claim 20, LV discloses wherein, a value range of the interlayer spacing of the first negative active material is 0.34 nm to 0.42 nm; and a value range of the interlayer spacing of the second negative active material is 0.37 nm to 0.61 nm ([0020], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724