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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13 and 18-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, support for the limitation “wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon negative electrode active material is about 0.3 μm to about 4 μm” is not found in the original disclosure. Published Specification [0070] discloses “[a]n average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon negative electrode active material may be less than or equal to about 30 μm (and greater than about 0 μm). In an implementation, the average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon negative electrode active material may be, e.g., greater than or equal to about 0.1 μm, greater than or equal to about 0.5 μm, or greater than or equal to about 1 μm and less than or equal to about 30 μm, less than or equal to about 20 μm, less than or equal to about 10 μm, or less than or equal to about 5 μm”.
Regarding claim 7, support for the limitation “wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 12 μm to about 50 μm” is not found in the original disclosure. Published Specification [0075] discloses “[a]n average particle diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material composite may be about 10 to about 25 μm ... In an implementation, the average particle diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material composite may be greater than or equal to about 10 μm, greater than or equal to about 15 μm, or greater than or equal to about 20 μm and less than or equal to about 25 μm, less than or equal to about 24 μm, or less than or equal to about 23 μm.”
Regarding claim 22, support for the limitation “wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 6 µm to less than about 12 µm” is not found in the original disclosure. Published Specification [0075] discloses “[a]n average particle diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material composite may be about 10 to about 25 μm ... In an implementation, the average particle diameter (D50) of the negative electrode active material composite may be greater than or equal to about 10 μm, greater than or equal to about 15 μm, or greater than or equal to about 20 μm and less than or equal to about 25 μm, less than or equal to about 24 μm, or less than or equal to about 23 μm.”
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 6 µm to less than about 12 µm” is unclear as to how it should be interpreted since claim 1 recites “wherein the artificial graphite primary particles have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 6 um to about 11 um, and wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon negative electrode active material is about 0.3 um to about 4 um.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (“Oh”, KR 20190122417 A, see machine translation) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh-857”, US 20190198857 A1, disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a negative electrode active material composite (Oh, Title, [0001], e.g., negative electrode active material), comprising:
secondary particles in which artificial graphite primary particles are assembled (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], [0041], [0093], e.g., crystalline carbon secondary particles (5) in which primary particles are assembled; crystalline carbon secondary particles may be artificial graphite; artificial graphite secondary particles were in the form of assembled primary particles); and
a conductive material in internal gaps of the secondary particles (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], [0041], e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 1, the negative active material (1) includes crystalline carbon particles (3) (which is being interpreted as conductive material), crystalline carbon secondary particles (5) in which primary particles are assembled; crystalline carbon included in the crystalline carbon microparticles, may be artificial graphite, natural graphite or a combination thereof),
a silicon negative electrode active material (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 1, the negative active material (1) includes a silicon-carbon composite (7) (which is being interpreted as silicon negative electrode active material)),
wherein at least a portion of the artificial graphite primary particles include an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface thereof (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], [0035], e.g., crystalline carbon secondary particles (5) in which primary particles are assembled; the crystalline carbon secondary particles may further include an amorphous carbon coating layer on the surface (which is being interpreted as at least a portion of the artificial graphite primary particles include an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface thereof (since crystalline carbon secondary particles (5) in which primary particles are assembled (see Fig. 1)))), and
wherein the artificial graphite primary particles have an average particle diameter (D50) of 9 um to about 11 um (Oh, Fig. 1, [0034], e.g., crystalline carbon secondary particles are in the form of assembled primary particles; the average particle diameter (D50) of the primary particles may be 9 um to 11 um), and
wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon negative electrode active material is 5 μm to 20 μm, which close to the claimed range of about 0.3 μm to about 4 μm; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], [0029], e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 1, the negative active material (1) includes a silicon-carbon composite (7) (which is being interpreted as silicon negative electrode active material); average particle diameter (D50) of the above silicon-carbon composite may be 5 μm to 20 μm (which is close to the claimed range of about 0.3 μm to about 4 μm; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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.).)).
Oh does not teach wherein the amorphous carbon coating layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 900 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oh-857 teaches a negative active material comprising a first carbon-based material (Oh-857, Title, Abstract); the first carbon-based material may include an artificial graphite secondary particle formed by agglomeration of a plurality of artificial graphite primary particles (Oh-857, [0047]); a carbon coating layer may be further included on the surface of the first carbon-based material (which is being interpreted as at least a portion of the artificial graphite primary particles include a carbon coating layer on a surface thereof (since artificial graphite secondary particle formed by agglomeration of a plurality of artificial graphite primary particles)) (Oh-857, [0067]); the carbon coating layer may include amorphous carbon (Oh-857, [0070]); and a thickness of the carbon coating layer may be in a range of several nanometers to tens of nanometers (which falls in the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 900 nm) (Oh-857, [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the amorphous carbon coating layer has a thickness falling in the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 900 nm, for the purpose of providing optimum capacity and efficiency (Oh-857, [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches a negative electrode active material composite that is substantially identical to that of claim 1 as disclosed in claim 1 above; therefore, the negative electrode active material composite of Oh in view of Oh-857 is expected to have a theoretical capacity of about 330 to about 400 mAh/g as claimed in claim 3, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 4, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches a negative electrode active material composite that is substantially identical to that of claim 1 as disclosed in claim 1 above; therefore, the negative electrode active material composite of Oh in view of Oh-857 is expected to have an interplanar spacing of the (002) plane of about 3.35 to about 3.8 nm, when measured by XRD as claimed in claim 4, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 5, Oh teaches wherein the negative electrode active material composite has a tap density falling in the claimed range of about 0.7 to about 1.5 g/cc (Oh, [0138], Table 2, e.g., the tap density of the negative active materials manufactured according to Examples 2 to 3, and the results are shown in Table 2).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is considered product-by-process claim. Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed artificial graphite primary particles as disclosed in claim 1 above. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113). Claim 8 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Oh in view of Oh-857.
Regarding claim 10, Oh teaches wherein the amorphous carbon coating layer includes a mesophase pitch carbonized product (Oh, [0035], e.g., the crystalline carbon secondary particles may further include an amorphous carbon coating layer on the surface; amorphous carbon may be petroleum pitch (which is being interpreted as a mesophase pitch carbonized product), coal pitch (which is being interpreted as a mesophase pitch carbonized product) or a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 13, Oh teaches wherein the silicon negative electrode active material is included in an amount of 11 wt% to 13 wt%, based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material composite (Oh, [0038], e.g., he mixing ratio of the above carbon-based material and the silicon-carbon composite may be 89:11 to 87:13 in weight ratio).
Regarding claim 18, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 as disclosed above. Oh teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative electrode comprising: a current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer on the current collector, wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes the negative electrode active material composite (Oh, [0046], [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Oh teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer further includes a binder (Oh, [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode of claims 1 and 18 as disclosed above. Oh teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: the negative electrode; a positive electrode; and an electrolyte (Oh, [0046]).
Regarding claim 21, Oh teaches wherein: the silicon negative electrode active material is in the internal gaps of the secondary particles, and the silicon negative electrode active material is in contact with at least a portion of the artificial graphite primary particles (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], [0041], [0093], e.g., the negative active material (1) includes crystalline carbon secondary particles (5) in which primary particles are assembled, and a silicon-carbon composite (7) (which is being interpreted as silicon negative electrode active material), wherein the silicon-carbon composite (7) has a form in which the crystalline carbon secondary particles (5) are in contact with; crystalline carbon secondary particles may be artificial graphite; artificial graphite secondary particles were in the form of assembled primary particles; (as shown in Fig. 1, silicon negative electrode active material (7) is in the internal gaps of the secondary particles (5); and the silicon negative electrode active material (7) is in contact with at least a portion of the artificial graphite primary particles (particles inside 5))).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (“Oh”, KR 20190122417 A, see machine translation) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh-857”, US 20190198857 A1, disclosed in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (“Ahn”, KR 20210037657 A, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 as disclosed above. Oh in view of Oh-857 does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material composite has a pellet density of about 1.35 to about 2.0 g/cc, after press molding under a pressure of 2 tons.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ahn teaches a negative electrode active material composite having a pellet density falling in the claimed range of about 1.35 to about 2.0 g/cc (Ahn. Title, [0008], Table 1 (see examples 6, 9 and 13), e.g., 1.50 g/cc in example 6 of Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the negative electrode active material composite has a pellet density falling in the claimed range of about 1.35 to about 2.0 g/cc, after press molding under a pressure of 2 tons, for the purpose of providing optimum physical properties (Ahn, [0035]).
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (“Oh”, KR 20190122417 A, see machine translation) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh-857”, US 20190198857 A1, disclosed in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuno et al. (US 20170117583 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 as disclosed above. Oh in view of Oh-857 does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 12 µm to about 50 µm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuno a negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of 12 μm or more and 33 μm or less (Matsuno, [0058], [0055], e.g., average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material is preferably 12 μm or more and 33 μm or less).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) falling in the claimed range of about 12 µm to about 50 µm, for the purpose of controlling the negative electrode active material particles to have a more uniform shape and/or improving battery performance (Matsuno, [0058]).
Regarding claim 22, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 as disclosed above. Oh in view of Oh-857 does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 6 µm to less than about 12 µm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsuno a negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 μm or more and 74 μm or less (which overlaps the claimed arrange of about 6 µm to less than about 12 µm; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) (Matsuno, [0058], [0055], e.g., average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material is preferably 5 μm or more and 74 μm or less (which overlaps the claimed arrange of about 6 µm to less than about 12 µm; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the negative electrode active material composite has an average particle diameter (D50) falling in the claimed range of about 6 µm to less than about 12 µm, for the purpose of controlling the negative electrode active material particles to have a more uniform shape and/or improving battery performance (Matsuno, [0058]). 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.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (“Oh”, KR 20190122417 A, see machine translation) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh-857”, US 20190198857 A1, disclosed in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (“Cha”, US 20140050975 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 as disclosed above. Oh in view of Oh-857 does not teach wherein the conductive material includes carbon nanotubes (CNT), graphene, denka black, ketjen black, acetylene black, carbon black, or a mixture thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cha teaches a negative active material may be porous secondary particles that is an assembly of the active material primary particles, conductive material, and composite binder (Cha, [0014], Figs. 1-3). Cha also teaches the conductive material provides a conductive path between the active material primary particles, and the conductive material may be carbon black (Cha, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the conductive material includes carbon black, for the purpose of providing a conductive path between active material primary particles (Cha, [0046]). Alternatively, a simple substitution of the silicon/conductive nanoparticles 107 of Kim for the carbon black of Cha is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (“Oh”, KR 20190122417 A, see machine translation) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh-857”, US 20190198857 A1, disclosed in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cha et al. (“Cha”, US 20140050975 A1) and Lee et al. (“Lee”, KR 20200105228 A, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Oh in view of Oh-857 teaches the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 as disclosed above. Oh in view of Oh-857 does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material composite includes: greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 0.5 wt% of the conductive material, and greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 5 wt% of the amorphous carbon coating layer, all wt% being based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material composite.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cha teaches a negative active material may be porous secondary particles that is an assembly of the active material primary particles, conductive material, and composite binder (Cha, [0014], Figs. 1-3). Cha also teaches the conductive material provides a conductive path between the active material primary particles and may be any material having, conductivity without limitation (Cha, [0046]). Cha further teaches the conductive material may be included in an amount of about 0.1 wt % to about 3 wt % (which overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 0.5 wt%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) based on the total amount of the negative active material (Cha, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the negative electrode active material composite includes greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 0.5 wt% of the conductive material based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material composite, for the purpose of maintaining appropriate conductivity for charge discharge (Cha, [0047]). Cha teaches a conductive material in an amount overlapping that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Oh in view of Oh-857 and Cha does not teach wherein the negative electrode active material composite includes greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 5 wt% of the amorphous carbon coating layer based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material composite.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches negative active material particle including artificial graphite in the form of secondary particles formed by assembling primary particles of artificial graphite and a carbon coating layer disposed on the artificial graphite (which is being interpreted as at least some of the artificial graphite primary particles include an amorphous carbon coating layer on a surface thereof) (Lee, [0097]). Lee also teaches the carbon coating layer may be included in the negative electrode active material particles at 0.5 wt% to 5.0 wt%, and specifically, may be included at 1 wt% to 4 wt% (Lee, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the negative electrode active material composite includes greater than about 0 wt% and less than or equal to about 0.5 wt% of the conductive material based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material composite, for the purpose of securing capacity per weight of the negative electrode active material particles and/or improving conductivity of the negative electrode active material particles (Lee, [0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the cited references fail to teach or suggest a negative electrode active material otherwise corresponding to the negative electrode active material composite of claim 1 and including silicon negative electrode active material having an average particle diameter of about 0.3 pm to about 4 pm. Thus, it is respectfully asserted that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the negative electrode active material of instant claim 1.” (Remarks, Page 9 of 13).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Oh teaches wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the silicon negative electrode active material is 5 μm to 20 μm, which close to the claimed range of about 0.3 μm to about 4 μm; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Oh, Fig. 1, [0024], [0029], e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 1, the negative active material (1) includes a silicon-carbon composite (7) (which is being interpreted as silicon negative electrode active material); average particle diameter (D50) of the above silicon-carbon composite may be 5 μm to 20 μm (which is close to the claimed range of about 0.3 μm to about 4 μm; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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.).)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights