DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/05/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “…based on a total weight of the first ad second negative electrode…” on line 2 of the claim, which should be amended to read “…based on a total weight of the first and second negative electrode…” in order to correct a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 17, the examiner understands the “amount of silicon-based active material” being the same in each layer referring to a proportion, or weight percentage, of silicon-based active material in the coating composition for each respective layer, rather than to specific mass-based or volume-based quantities of silicon-based active materials in each layer, which appears to be in accordance with the present specification: Example 1, [0097] of present specification lists ratios of active materials for each coating composition, such as 60/39/1 and 70/29/1, where SiO in each composition is 1 in each ratio.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20220069293A1, hereafter Song, in view of Published Application US20230286806A1, hereafter Yamaji.
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery ([0057] negative electrode 7; [0033] rechargeable lithium battery), comprising:
a current collector ([0033] negative electrode includes current collector);
a first negative electrode active material layer provided on the current collector ([0033] negative active material layer; [0034] first negative active material layer on current collector); and
a second negative electrode active material layer provided on the first negative electrode active material layer ([0034] second negative active material layer on first layer),
wherein the first and second negative electrode active material layers comprise a silicon-based active material and natural graphite ([0085] negative active material layer may include Si-based negative active material; [0084] negative active material may be mixture of artificial graphite and natural graphite), and
an OI (004/110) of the first and second negative electrode active material layers is 8 or less ([0081] negative electrode has I(110)/I(004), of greater than or equal to about 0.3, and, for example, greater than or equal to about 0.3 and less than or equal to about 0.7).
Song is silent on the natural graphite having an average particle diameter (D50) of 10 m or less.
In the analogous art of secondary battery electrodes, Yamaji discloses the natural graphite ([0082] graphite may be natural graphite) having an average particle diameter (D50) of 5-12 µm ([0136-0137] spherically shaped coated graphite has average particle diameter of 5-12µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 µm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Yamaji further discloses this size range yielding excellent cycle capacity-maintaining property ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Song to select a natural graphite average particle diameter of 5-10µm as disclosed by Yamaji in order to yield an excellent cycle capacity-maintaining property, as suggested by Yamaji.
Regarding claim 2, Song further discloses wherein a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer is 10-100 µm and the first negative electrode active material layer is 40-400µm ([0072] first layer of 40-400µm; [0075] second layer of 10-100µm), which overlaps with the thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer being 40% to 60% of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaji discloses wherein the natural graphite has an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 µm to 12 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 6 µm to 9 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 4, Song further discloses wherein the first and second negative electrode active material layers further comprise artificial graphite ([0084] negative active material may be mixture of artificial graphite and natural graphite).
Regarding claim 6, Song further discloses wherein each of the first and second negative electrode active material layers comprises the silicon-based active material in an amount of 1 part by weight to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of negative electrode active material ([0085] 50:50 to about 99:1 of carbon based active material to non-carbon based negative active material), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 part by weight to 40 parts by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, Song further discloses wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one of:
SiOx, wherein 0≤x<2 ([0086]),
SiMy, wherein M is a metal and 1≤y≤4 ([0086]), and
Si/C ([0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Song further discloses wherein each of the first and second negative electrode active material layers comprises the natural graphite in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of negative electrode active material ([0084] artificial graphite to natural graphite ratio of 70:30 wt% to about 95:5 wt%; [0085] 50:50 to about 99:1 of carbon based active material to non-carbon based negative active material).
Regarding claim 9, Song further discloses wherein each of the first and second negative electrode active material layers comprises artificial graphite in an amount of 50 parts by weight to 99 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of negative electrode active material ([0084] artificial graphite to natural graphite ratio of 70:30 wt% to about 95:5 wt%; [0085] 50:50 to about 99:1 of carbon based active material to non-carbon based negative active material).
Regarding claim 10, modified Song discloses a secondary battery ([0033] rechargeable lithium battery) comprising the negative electrode according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1), a positive electrode ([0033] positive electrode), and a separator ([0166] separator).
Regarding claim 11, Song further discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a lithium composite transition metal compound comprising nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co) as an active material ([0139] Li Ni Co mixed oxide positive electrode active material).
Regarding claim 12, Song further discloses wherein the lithium composite transition metal compound further comprises at least one of manganese or aluminum ([0139] Li Ni Mn X oxide; [140] X may be Co).
Regarding claim 15, Song further discloses wherein the thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer is 20% to 35% relative to a total thickness of the first and second negative electrode active material layers ([0074] 20% to 80%, which encompasses the claimed range of 20% to 35%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 17, Song further discloses wherein the amount of silicon-based active material in each of the first and second negative electrode active material layers is the same ([0085-0086] Si-based negative active material is discussed as part of the negative active material layer, which is made of the first and second layers; no evidence the composition of the Si-based active material is different between layers - examples all appear to show identical compositions with differing viscosities).
Regarding claim 18, Song further discloses wherein a weight loading ratio of the second negative electrode active material layer is about 20% to 80% based on a total weight of the first and second negative electrode active material layers ([0074] 20%-80% thickness ratio of first layer to negative active material layer; [0087] 95 wt% to about 99 wt% of negative active material based on total weight of each layer; Examiner notes this range of thickness with 95-99 wt% negative active material in the second layer necessarily results in a weight loading ratio of the second layer that will overlap with the claimed range of 20% to 35%). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20220069293A1, hereafter Song, in view of Published Application US20230286806A1, hereafter Yamaji, as stated above for claim 4, in view of Published Application US20200295351A1, hereafter Piao.
Regarding claim 5, Song is silent on wherein the artificial graphite has an average particle diameter (D50) of 15 µm to 50 µm.
In the analogous art of secondary battery electrode materials, Piao discloses wherein the artificial graphite has an average particle diameter (D50) of 10 µm to 30 µm resulting in excellent dispersibility, charging properties, and lifespan properties ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 µm to 50 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the invention of Song to select the range of 15 µm to 30 µm, in order to achieve excellent dispersibility, charging properties, and lifespan properties, as suggested by Piao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754