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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because [00126] of instant specification describes a Raman spectrogram of the composite particle for Figure 4, however, an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is presented. Further, Figure 4 is a duplicate of Figure 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the recitation “a surface of the each composite particle comprises the first region” in lines 4-5 of said claim should be “a surface of each composite particle comprises the first region”.
In Claims 3 & 11, the recitations “an average particle size of the graphite” (line 5), “an average flake size of the graphene” (line 6), “an average diameter of the carbon nanotubes” (line 7), “an average particle size of the lithium oxide” (line 8) and “an average particle size of the transition metal oxide” (line 9) should read “the average particle size of the graphite”, “the average flake size of the graphene”, “the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes”, “the average particle size of the lithium oxide” and “the average particle size of the transition metal oxide” respectively. There can only be one average quantity of each of these parameters and they describe properties of the materials.
In Claims 6 & 14, the recitation “wherein the each composite particle is a primary particle” (lines 1-2) should be “wherein each composite particle is a primary particle”. Further the recitation “with a particle size of the primary particle satisfies 3 μm≤Dv50≤12 μm” (lines 2-3) should read “wherein the particle size of the primary particle satisfies 3 μm≤Dv50≤12 μm”.
In Claims 7 & 15, the recitations “a range of 283 eV to 288 eV” (line 4), “a wavenumber of 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1 (line 6), “a wavenumber of 1550 cm-1 to 1650 cm-1” (line 7) and “a specific surface area of the negative active material is 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g” (line 9) should read “the range of 283 eV to 288 eV”, “the wavenumber of 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1, “the wavenumber of 1550 cm-1 to 1650 cm-1” and “the specific surface area of the negative active material is 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g” respectively. The ranges and parameters are inherently defined.
In Claims 8 & 16, the recitations “a range of 18° to 30°” (line 4), “a half width” (line 4) and “a range of 26° to 27°” (line 7) should read “the range of 18° to 30°”, “the half width” and “the range of 26° to 27°” respectively. The ranges and parameter are inherently defined.
In Claim 9, the recitation “a surface of the each composite particle comprises the first region” in lines 6-7 of said claim should be “a surface of each composite particle comprises the first region”.
In Claim 17, the recitation “a surface of the each composite particle comprises the first region” in lines 6-7 of said claim should be “a surface of each composite particle comprises the first region”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
Claims 1, 9 & 17 are indefinite because of the recitation “and a surface of the each composite particle comprises the first region.” It is unclear if the entire surface of the composite particle comprises the first region or only a portion of the surface of each composite particle. Further, the above recitation makes the claim unclear as the surface between the first and second regions can be considered a surface. For the purpose of this office action, “and a surface of the each composite particle comprises the first region” has been interpreted to read “and the outer surface of each composite particle comprises the first region.”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-8 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite claim 1, as they include all the limitations of claim 1 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
Further, dependent claims 10-16 are rejected as a result of their dependence on indefinite claim 9, as they include all the limitations of claim 9 and they do not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)/a(2) as being anticipated by Cho (US 2013/0089784 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 17, Cho teaches a negative active material (negative active material, see [0013]) comprising composite particles (primary particle 100, see [0013], [0048] & Figure 1]); wherein each composite particle (primary particle 100) comprises a first region (130, see annotated Figure 1) and a second region (110, see annotated Figure 1), the first region (110, see annotated Figure 1) comprises a disordered carbon structure (amorphous carbonaceous coating layer 130, see [0048] & Figure 1), the second region (110, see annotated Figure 1) comprises an ordered carbon structure and/or a metal oxide structure (crystalline carbon-based core 110, see [0013], [0048] & Figure 1), and the outer surface (see annotated Figure 1) of the each composite particle (primary particle 100) comprises the first region (130, see annotated Figure 1, wherein the first region comprising of amorphous carbonaceous coating layer 130 is coated over the second region comprising of crystalline carbon-based core 110 thus forming the surface of the primary particle 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, regarding Claim 9, Cho teaches a secondary battery (a lithium battery 30, [0093], [0096] & Figure 2), comprising a negative electrode (negative electrode 22, [0096] & Figure 2), the negative electrode (negative electrode 22, [0096] & Figure 2) comprising a negative active material layer (negative active material composition, [0075], [0013] and [0048] and Fig. 1) and a current collector (current collector, [0075]).
Further, regarding Claim 17, Cho teaches an electronic apparatus (electronic devices for information communication such as PDAs, mobile phones or notebook computers, see [0005]) comprising the secondary battery (a lithium battery 30, [0093], [0096] & Figure 2),
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, Cho teaches all the limitation as set forth above and further teaches the negative active material (negative active material, see [0013]) wherein the first region (130, see annotated Figure 1) comprises a first active material (amorphous carbonaceous coating layer 130, see [0048] & Figure 1), the first active material (amorphous carbonaceous coating layer 130) comprises hard carbon (the amorphous carbon-based coating layer 130 is selected from soft carbon (low temperature carbon), hard carbon, pitch carbide, meso phase pitch carbide, calcined coke, and a combination thereof, [0017]); and/or the second region (110, see annotated Figure 1) comprises a second active material (crystalline carbon-based core 110, see [0048] & Figure 1) the second active material (crystalline carbon-based core 110, see [0048] & Figure 1) comprises at least one of graphite, graphene, carbon nanotubes, lithium oxide, or a transition metal oxide (the crystalline carbon-based core 110 may be natural graphite, artificial graphite, expandable graphite, graphene, carbon black, fullerene soot or combinations thereof, see lines 1-3 of [0051]).
Regarding Claims 5 & 13, Cho teaches all the limitation as set forth above and further teaches wherein the second region (110, see annotated Figure 1) is in disordered distribution or layered distribution inside the composite particle (see [0056] which describes that spherical crystalline carbonaceous core 110 may have a microstructure, in which layered graphite may be gently or sharply curved, or may have a microstructure that is composed of a plurality of gently or sharply curved graphite scales or a plurality of graphite thin films which reads on a layered distribution).
Regarding Claim 8 & 16, Cho teaches all the limitation as set forth above. Further Cho discloses that the negative active material of Cho includes the first region comprising a disordered carbon structure (amorphous carbonaceous coating layer 130, see [0048] & Figure 1), and the second region (110, see annotated Figure 1) comprising an ordered carbon structure and/or a metal oxide structure (crystalline carbon-based core 110, see [0013], [0048] & Figure 1). Cho further discloses wherein the second active material (crystalline carbon-based core 110, see [0048] & Figure 1) comprises graphite (the crystalline carbon-based core 110 may be natural graphite, artificial graphite, expandable graphite, graphene, carbon black, fullerene soot or combinations thereof, see lines 1-3 of [0051]).
While Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the negative active material satisfies at least one of the following conditions (d) to (g): (d) an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak within a range of 18° to 30°, wherein a half width of the characteristic peak is 4° to 12°; (e) an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak within a range of 26° to 27°; (f) an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak within at least one of the following ranges: 18° to 19°, 35° to 36°, or 43° to 44°; or (g) an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak within at least one of the following ranges: 30° to 31°, 35° to 36°, 42.5° to 43.5°, 56.5° to 57.5°, or 62° to 63°, it is submitted, however, that an X-ray diffraction pattern is simply a measurement of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the claimed negative active material.
In the Instant Specification, Applicant discloses ([0014]-[0017]) the specific material required for the negative active material to produce the characteristic X-ray diffraction pattern with a distinct characteristic peak. Applicant specifically discloses in [0015] that an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak when 2θ is within a range of 26° to 27°, where the characteristic peak corresponds to the graphite or carbon nanotubes (CNT) in the second region.
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that the identity of the negative active material is critical to the instant characteristic peak of the X-ray diffraction pattern such that it would fulfil the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties
MPEP § 2112.01.II states 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.
Therefore, as the second region of the negative active material of Cho is substantially identical to the instant second region of the negative active material, as set forth above, it appears reasonable that the negative active material of Cho would inherently possess properties such that its X-ray diffraction pattern would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. (e) an X-ray diffraction pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak within a range of 26° to 27°.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2013/089784A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16-17 above, in view of Kim (US 2014/0087255 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, Cho teaches all the limitation as set forth above.
Further, Cho teaches that the second active material (crystalline carbon-based core 110) may be in a range of about 1 – 30 μm (see [0023], wherein crystalline carbon-based core could may be any one of natural graphite, artificial graphite, expandable graphite, graphene, carbon black, fullerene soot or combinations thereof, see lines 1-3 of [0051]) but does not explicitly teach the second active material satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (1) an average particle size of the graphite is 10 nm to 1000 nm; (2) an average flake size of the graphene is 10 nm to 2000 nm; (3) an average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is 10 nm to 2000 nm; (4) an average particle size of the lithium oxide is 10 nm to 1000 nm; or (5) an average particle size of the transition metal oxide is 10 nm to 1000 nm (as required by Claims 3 & 11) and wherein the second active material satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (6) the average particle size of the graphite is 20 nm to 300 nm; (7) the average flake size of the graphene is 20 nm to 500 nm; (8) the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is 20 nm to 500 nm; (9) the average particle size of the lithium oxide is 20 nm to 300 nm; or (10) the average particle size of the transition metal oxide is 20 nm to 300 nm (as required by Claims 4 & 12),
Kim teaches a secondary battery (lithium battery 1, [0071] & Figure 8), negative electrode (anode 2, [0071] & Figure 8), negative active material (composite anode active material 10, [0031] & Figure 1), composite particles (shell 11 & core 15, [0031] & Figure 1), first region (shell 11, [0031] & Figure 1]), second region (core 15, [0031] & Figure 1). Kim teaches wherein the second region (core 15, [0031] & Figure 1) comprises the second active material (first metal nanostructure 12 & conducting agent 13, [0031] & Figure 1). Kim further teaches that the second active material (conducting agent 13) comprises at least one of graphite, graphene, carbon nanotubes, lithium oxide, or the transition metal oxide (conductive agent may be selected from the group consisting of a carbon nanostructure wherein the carbon nanostructure may be selected from the group consisting of carbon nanotube, graphene, carbon nanofiber, fullerene, active carbon particle, carbon nanoplate, carbon onion and carbon (see [0042]-[0043]). Additionally, Kim teaches that the nanostructure in the composite anode active material may be a nanoparticle wherein the nanoparticle may have an average particle diameter of about 25 nm to about 75 nm (see [0041]) which reads on (3) an average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is 10 nm to 2000 nm (as required by claim 3) and (8) the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is 20 nm to 500 nm (as required by claim 4). Kim further teaches that the average particle diameter of the nanoparticle may be appropriately controlled within a range so as to further improve the discharge capacity, high-rate characteristics, and lifetime characteristics of a lithium battery (see [0041]).
Cho and Kim are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of anode materials for lithium batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the carbon nanotube with an average particle diameter of about 25 nm to about 75 nm as the second active material in place of the crystalline carbon-based core of Cho in order to further improve the discharge capacity high-rate characteristics, and lifetime characteristics of a lithium battery.
Claims 6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2013/089784 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16-17 above, in view of Kurita (US 2019/0363348 A1)
Regarding Claims 6 & 14, modified Cho teaches all the limitation as set forth above. Further, Cho only discloses the average particle diameter of the carbonaceous core 110 may be in a range of 1 – 30 μm [0023] but does not explicitly disclose wherein the each composite particle is a primary particle, with a particle size of the primary particle satisfies 3 μm≤Dv50≤12 μm.
Kurita teaches a secondary battery (lithium-ion secondary battery, [0014]), negative active material (negative electrode material, [0014]), composite particle (composite (A), [0024] wherein composite (A) comprises particles (A1), particles (A2) and carbonaceous material (A3); graphite-containing substance (B); and graphite-containing substance (C)). Kurita further teaches that composite particle (composite (A), [0024]) has a Dv50 of 3.0 μm or more and 20.0 μm or less (see [0022]) which overlaps the claimed range a particle size of the primary particle satisfies 3 μm≤Dv50≤12 μm and further discloses that this Dv50 range results in improved coulombic efficiency and good handling when producing an electrode (see [0022]).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the Dv50 is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the coulombic efficiency and processability of an electrode, as taught by Kurita, thus making the Dv50 a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the average particle diameter of the carbonaceous core of Cho such that 3 μm≤Dv50≤12 μm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable coulombic efficiency and processability during production of the electrode.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2013/089784A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 13, 16-17 above.
Regarding Claims 7 & 15, Cho teaches all the limitation as set forth above but does not explicitly teaches wherein the negative active material satisfies at least one of the following conditions (a) to (c): (a) an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy pattern of the negative active material shows a characteristic peak within a range of 283 eV to 288 eV; (b) the negative active material has an ID/IG of 0.6 to 1.3, wherein ID represents a peak intensity within a wavenumber of 1300 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1 during a Raman spectrum test, and IG represents a peak intensity within a wavenumber of 1550 cm-1 to 1650 cm-1 during a Raman spectrum test; or (c) a specific surface area of the negative active material is 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the specific surface area is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting reactivity with an electrolytic solution, as disclosed by Cho (see [0055] which teaches that when the specific surface area of the carbonaceous core 110 is reduced, reactivity with an electrolytic solution is decreased), thus making the specific surface area of the negative active material a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific surface area of Cho such that a specific surface area of the negative active material is 1 m2/g to 50 m2/g via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable reactivity with an electrolytic solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725