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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 11-13 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 11-13 depend upon claim 10 and recites the limitation "the binder". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 10 states that there is a binder in each of the first anode mixture layer and second anode mixture layer and thus it is unclear if “the binder” of claims 11-13 refer to the first or second anode mixture layer binder.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Duan discloses an anode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
An anode current collector (Figure 1-2; [0020] negative electrode plate includes a current collector 1);
A first anode mixture layer disposed on at least one surface of the anode current collector, and including a first silicon-based anode active material (Figure 1-2; [0020] negative electrode plate includes a current collector 1 and an active material layer 2 wherein the active material 2 includes a first active material layer 5 and a second active material layer 6 wherein the first active material layer 5 includes a first silicon based material); and
A second anode mixture layer disposed on the first anode mixture layer, and including a second silicon based anode active material (Figure 1-2; [0020] negative electrode plate includes a current collector 1 and an active material layer 2 wherein the active material 2 includes a first active material layer 5 and a second active material layer 6 wherein the second active material layer 6 includes a second silicon based material provided on the first active material).
Duan further discloses wherein the second silicon based material and the first silicon based material can each be independently include one or more of silicon, a silicon alloy, a silicon oxide, or a silicon carbon composite ([0011]).
While Duan is silent with respect to the second silicon based anode active material having a higher discharge capacity than the first silicon based anode active material, Duan discloses wherein the materials for the first and second active materials can be a silicon oxide and a silicon carbon composite such as SiC. The silicon carbon composite has a lower discharge capacity than the silicon oxide material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to select the material of the second silicon based anode active material to be silicon oxide and the first silicon based anode active material to be the silicon carbon composite such as SiC as a selection of a known material for a known intended use. The resulting modification would have the silicon oxide material, second silicon based anode active material, having a larger discharge capacity than the silicon carbide, first silicon based anode active material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the first silicon based anode active material comprises SiOx, silicon oxide, and the second silicon based anode active material comprises SiC ([0011, 0032], see modification of claim 1). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the first silicon based anode active material is included in an amount of 5-85% by weight with respect to a total weight of the first anode mixture layer ([0025] weight percentage of the silicon element based on the weight of the first active material layer is 0.1-30%). 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the second silicon based anode active material is included in an amount of 3-60% by weight with respect to a total weight of the second anode mixture layer ([0025] weight percentage of the silicon element based on the weight of the second active material layer is 1-100%). 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).
Regarding claim 7, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the first anode mixture layer and the second anode mixture layer further comprise a carbon based anode active material ([0012] first and second active material layer each independently includes at least one of graphite, meso carbon microbead, soft carbon, or hard carbon).
Regarding claim 8, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the first active material layer and the second active material layer each independently have a thickness of 0.2-100 µm ([0010]). Duan is silent with respect to wherein the second anode mixture layer has a greater thickness than the first anode mixture layer, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to try and select a thickness between the ranges as taught by Duan such that the second anode mixture layer has a greater thickness than the first anode mixture layer. The resulting ranges taught by Duan would render obvious wherein the second anode mixture layer has a greater thickness than the first anode mixture layer absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality as it would be obvious to try and select the thicknesses such that the second anode mixture layer has a greater thickness than the first anode mixture layer given the ranges taught by Duan. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 9, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the first active material layer and the second active material layer each independently have a thickness of 0.2-100 µm ([0010]). Duan is silent with respect to wherein the first anode mixture layer and the second anode mixture layer have a thickness ratio of 3:7 to 4:6, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to try and select a thickness between the ranges as taught by Duan such that the thickness ratio of the first to a second anode mixture layer is between 3:7 to 4:6. The resulting ranges taught by Duan would render obvious the thickness ratio of the first to a second anode mixture layer is between 3:7 to 4:6 absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality as it would be obvious to try and select the thicknesses such that the thickness ratio of the first to a second anode mixture layer is between 3:7 to 4:6 given the ranges taught by Duan. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 10, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Duan discloses wherein the first anode mixture layer and the second anode mixture layer further comprise a binder ([0029] the first active material and the second active material layer can further include a conductive agent and/or a binder).
Regarding claim 11, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Modified Duan discloses wherein the binder comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of polyacrylic acid, polyacrylic amide, polyimide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, polyacrylonitrile, carboxyl methyl cellulose, and copolymers of two or more thereof ([0029] polyacrylic acid, polyacrylonitrile, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose).
Regarding claim 14, modified Duan discloses the anode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a lithium secondary battery further comprises a cathode and a separator between the anode and the cathode (Figure 2; [0030] separator 11 provided between the negative electrode plate 12 and the positive electrode plate 10).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hayner et al. (US 2021/0135209 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Duan discloses wherein the first silicon based anode active material can be a silicon oxide, including SiOx, however is silent with respect to wherein the active material is doped with a metal.
Hayner discloses a anode active material and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of anode active materials for batteries. Hayner further discloses wherein the active material can be metal doped to further increased the electrical conductivity, energy density, and/or electrical performance of the electrode and battery cell and wherein the dopant can include a metal such as B, Li, N, Mg, Ti, Fe, Al, Cu etc. ([0117-0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Hayner and include a metal dopant into the first silicon based anode active material in order to increase the electrical conductivity, energy density and electrical performance of the active material and battery. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 3. Hayner further wherein the metal element can be at least one selected from the group of Mg, Li, Ca, Al, Fe, Ti, and V (Hayner [0117-0118]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ogihara (US 2013/0184385 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Duan discloses wherein a binder can be used in the active material layer, however, is silent with respect to wherein the binder has a number average molecular weight of 50,000 to 500,000 g/mol.
Ogihara discloses a negative electrode for a lithium ion battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of negative electrodes for battery cells. Ogihara further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material can comprise a binder and wherein the number average molecular weight of the binder material is 10,000 to 1,000,000 to improve the binding property of the active material ([0028-0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the binder of Duan to have a number average molecular weight between 10,000 and 1,000,000 to improve the binding property of the active material as taught by Ogihara. The resulting modification would render obvious the claim limitations of claim 12. 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2016/0099470 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Duan discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Duan further discloses wherein the binder comprises a first binder in the first anode mixture layer ([0029] the first active material layer and the second active material layer further include, each independently, a conductive agent and/or a binder); and
a second binder included in the second anode mixture layer ([0029] the first active material layer and the second active material layer further include, each independently, a conductive agent and/or a binder).
Duan discloses wherein the active material comprises a binder, however, is silent with respect to wherein the second binder has a lower number average molecular weight than the first binder.
Kwon discloses an electrode for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Kwon further discloses wherein a first and second binder may have different number average molecular weights to have different glass transition temperatures and to increase cross linking ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Kwon such that the first binder has a higher number average molecular weight compared to the second binder in order to increase crosslinking within the active material and to have different glass transition temperature of the layers as taught by Kwon. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeon et al. (US 2022/0344658 A1)- discloses a lithium metal oxide composite having a silicon based anode active material that can be doped to further improve properties of the electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights