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 .
The pending claims are claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong et al., CN 111933951.
Regarding claim 1, Hong et al., teaches a secondary battery (0002); comprising: a negative electrode plate (0004; 0071); wherein: a negative electrode active material layer of the negative electrode plate (0071; 0081; 0104) comprises a porous carbon material (0016-0017); the negative electrode active material layer has a pore (0017; 0023), the pore running through (through-pore structure) (0023) or not through (closed-pore structure) (0023) the negative electrode active material layer; and lithium metal is present in the pore (0016; 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Hong et al., teaches wherein the pore is a non-linear pore (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Hong et al., teaches wherein a maximum diameter of the pore is 1 μm–50 μm (50-500 nm) (0024).
Regarding claim 9, Hong et al., teaches wherein the porous carbon material comprises at least one selected from activated carbon (conductive carbon black) (0065).
Regarding claim 10, Hong et al., teaches wherein Dv50 of the porous carbon material is 1 μm–100 μm (0142).
Regarding claim 11, Hong et al., teaches wherein a specific surface area of the porous carbon material in a carbon dioxide atmosphere is greater than or equal to 50 m2/g (50-1000 m2/g (0024).
Regarding claim 13, Hong et al., teaches wherein a ratio of a specific surface area of the negative electrode plate in a carbon dioxide atmosphere to a specific surface area of the negative electrode plate in a nitrogen atmosphere is greater than or equal to 5 (50-1000 m2/g) (0024).
Regarding claim 14, Hong et al., teaches wherein in the negative electrode active material layer, a mass percentage of the porous carbon material is 90%–98% (40-99%) (0024)
Regarding claim 15, Hong et al., teaches wherein a current collector of the negative electrode plate comprises a copper foil (0064), the copper foil containing at least one element for lithiation (0064).
Regarding claim 17, Hong et al., teaches wherein the element for lithiation comprises at least one of silicon (0111).
Regarding claim 18, Hong et al., teaches wherein a thickness of the copper foil is 10 μm–20 μm (0064).
Regarding claim 20, Hong et al., teaches a battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 (0002; 0015).
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al., CN 111933951.
Regarding claim 2, Hong et al., teaches further comprising: a positive electrode plate (0088; 0104); wherein a composite lithium active material comprising porous carbon particles and metallic lithium and lithiation products deposited within the pore structure of the porous carbon particles (0060).
Hong does not teach a ratio CB of a reversible lithiation capacity of the negative electrode plate to a reversible delithiation capacity of the positive electrode plate satisfies: 0 < CB ≤ 1.
However, Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 3, Hong et al., teaches wherein a thickness x of the negative electrode active material layer (0024; 0085).
Hong et al., does not teach a distance y between two end openings of the pore in a direction perpendicular to the negative electrode active material layer satisfy: 0.1x ≤ y ≤ x.
However, Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 4, Hong et al., teaches wherein a length L between two end openings of the pore along an inner wall of the pore and a distance y between the two end openings of the pore in a direction perpendicular to the negative electrode active material layer satisfy: L > y.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 6, Hong et al., teaches wherein a projection of interior of the pore on a current collector in a direction perpendicular to the negative electrode active material layer does not overlap with two end openings of the pore.
However, Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 7, Hong et al., does not teach wherein the pore is one of a plurality of pores in the negative electrode active material layer, and a thickness x of the negative electrode active material layer and a distance d between adjacent two of the pores satisfy d ≤ 10x.
However, 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, Hong et al., teaches wherein an oil absorption value of the porous carbon material determined using Gardner-Coleman method is greater than or equal to 30 mL/100g, wherein, "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955. Moreover, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 16, Hong et al., does not teach wherein a mass percentage of the element for lithiation in the copper foil is greater than or equal to 5%.
However, 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 19, Hong et al., teaches the negative electrode plate (0004; 0088) is prepared by: pretreating the porous carbon material (0050; 0069) so that the porous carbon material adsorbs gas (0049); preparing a negative electrode slurry from the porous carbon material with the gas adsorbed (0049; 0069); and preparing the negative electrode active material layer by using the negative electrode slurry (0069) on at least one surface of a current collector (0006; 0063-0064), the gas being desorbed from the porous carbon material to form the pore (0017; 0023; 0060).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727