DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The term “bulk specific gravity” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “bulk density, the mass of a substance divided by its total volume,” while the accepted meaning of “bulk specific gravity” is a ratio of the density of the material to the density of water the material is placed in.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US-20200251728-A1) in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US-20150236344-A1) and further in view of McGlinchey (Don McGlinchey, "Characterisation of Bulk Solids," 2005, John Wiley & Sons, illustrated edition, pages 48-50 (Year: 2005)).
As to claim 1, Song discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery [0022] comprising:
a positive electrode active material layer [0059];
a negative electrode active material layer [0023];
an electrolyte solution [0022] comprises an ionic liquid [0062-0064] and lithium [0062-0064]; and
a separator [0022];
wherein the separator is positioned between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer [0060],
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises silicon particles and a binder [0086],
wherein a weight ratio of the binder to the silicon particles is greater than or equal to 0.05 and less than or equal to 10 [0086] (10 parts binder: 70 parts silicon particles), and
wherein the binder comprises a carboxy group (polyacrylic acid [0086]).
However, Song does not disclose wherein the bulk specific gravity of the silicon particle is greater than or equal to 0.02 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 0.1 g/cm3.
Ramaswamy discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery, wherein the bulk density of the silicon particle is greater than or equal to 0.02 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 0.1 g/cm3 (range of 0.06 to 0.10 g/cm3 [0017]) to improve the porosity of the silicon. 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 described in paragraph [0176] of the present application, the bulk specific gravity was determined by adding silicon particles to a graduated cylinder and measuring the volume and weight of the silicon particles and then dividing the weight by the volume to find the bulk specific gravity. It is appreciated that the method described in the present application to find bulk specific gravity is also the method used to find bulk density as disclosed within McGlinchey (pages 48-50). As such, it is appreciated that the bulk density disclosed within Ramaswamy is equivalent to the bulk specific gravity disclosed within the present application.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to lithium-ion secondary battery disclosed within Song to include that the bulk specific gravity of the silicon particle is greater than or equal to 0.02 g/cm3 and less than or equal to 0.1 g/cm3 to improve the porosity of the silicon as disclosed within Ramaswamy.
As to claim 5, modified Song discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the binder comprises poly(acrylic acid) [0086].
As to claim 6, modified Song discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as disclosed within claim 1, and further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises graphite [0086]; and wherein a weight ratio of the graphite to the silicon particle (18 parts graphite and 70 parts silicon) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 19 [0086].
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2020/0251728 A1) in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US-20150236344-A1) and McGlinchey (Don McGlinchey, "Characterisation of Bulk Solids," 2005, John Wiley & Sons, illustrated edition, pages 48-50 (Year: 2005)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0214685 A1).
As to claim 3, modified Song discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the electrolyte solution comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide.
Chang discloses a secondary battery wherein the electrolyte may be formed from a combination of 1-methyl-1-propylpyrrolidinium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (PY13FSI) as a first ionic liquid and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) as a lithium salt [0144] and where 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide can be used as well for the electrolyte [0150] to prepare an electrolyte containing a high concentration of lithium salt [0144].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the secondary battery disclosed within Song with the teachings of Chang to additionally require that the electrolyte solution would comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to increase the salt concentration of the electrolyte.
6. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2020/0251728 A1) in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US-20150236344-A1) and McGlinchey (Don McGlinchey, "Characterisation of Bulk Solids," 2005, John Wiley & Sons, illustrated edition, pages 48-50 (Year: 2005)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umetsu et al. (US 2020/0287234 A1).
As to claim 4, modified Song discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as disclosed within claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the binder comprises polyglutamic acid.
Umetsu discloses a secondary battery where the binder comprises polyglutamic acid [0196]. As disclosed in Umetsu, the binder can be comprised of polyacrylic acid or polyglutamic acid with the type of acid used being interchangeable [0196]. It is appreciated that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the secondary battery disclosed within Song with the disclosure in Umetsu so that the binder was comprised of polyglutamic acid.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 filed on 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive and are further moot because, in light of the amendment, a new ground of rejection is given in view of Ramaswamy and further in view of McGlinchey.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JEROME SCHULER whose telephone number is (571)272-8487. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 5712721330. 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.
/J.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights