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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0042] lines 7-8, “from being in contact with moisture in the atmosphere or anode slurry” should read --from being in contact with moisture in the atmosphere or from being an anode slurry--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 13-14 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 4 and 5 recite the limitations “the content of the first silicon-based active material included in the first anode mixture layer is 0.1 to 5wt%” and “the content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer is 5 to 30wt%”, which render the claims indefinite, because it is unclear what value Applicant compares the first and second silicon-based active material amounts against to calculate the claimed weight percentages. For example, 0.1 to 5wt% could represent a weight of the first silicon-based active material compared to the total weight of the first anode mixture layer, or a weight of the first silicon-based active material compared to the total weight of both anode mixture layers. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the content of the first silicon-based active material included in the first anode mixture layer is 0.1 to 5wt%” is interpreted as the content of the first silicon-based active material included in the first anode mixture layer, compared to the total weight of the first anode mixture layer, is 0.1 to 5wt%, and the limitation “the content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer is 5 to 30wt%” is interpreted as the content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer, compared to the total weight of the second anode mixture layer, is 5 to 30wt%, as this appears to be what was intended by Applicant.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitations “the content of the first conductive material included in the first anode mixture layer is 0.3 to 5wt%” and “the content of the second conductive material included in the second anode mixture layer is 0.01 to 0.3wt%”, which render the claims indefinite, because it is unclear what value applicant compares the first and second conductive material amounts against to calculate the claimed weight percentages. Examiner also notes that the instant specification recites a weight percentage range from the carbon coating layer in terms of the total weight of the first silicon-based active material (Instant specification, [0044]). As stated above, the weight percentages could be weights of the conductive materials compared to the total weight of their corresponding anode mixture layers, the total weight of all anode mixture layers, or the weight of the silicon-based active material in their corresponding anode mixture layers (Instant specification, [0044]). For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the first conductive material included in the first anode mixture layer is 0.3 to 5wt% is interpreted as the first conductive material included in the first anode mixture layer, compared to the total weight of the first anode mixture layer, is 0.3 to 5wt%, and the limitation “the content of the second conductive material included in the second anode mixture layer is 0.01 to 0.3wt%” is interpreted as the content of the second conductive material included in the second anode mixture layer, compared to the total weight of the second anode mixture layer is 0.01 to 0.3wt%, as this appears to be what was intended by Applicant.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name “super P”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe carbon black and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The term “thin” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what carbon nanotube wall thickness would and would not be considered “thin”, which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (CN 114520315 B), hereinafter “Bae”, in view of Wu et al. (CN 114303260 A), hereinafter after “Wu”, wherein English machine translations of Bae and Wu are cited.
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches a negative electrode (corresponding to the claimed anode) for a rechargeable lithium battery (corresponding to the claimed secondary battery) (Bae, [0008], lines 1-2) comprising:
A current collector (Bae, [0010], lines 1-6)
A first negative electrode active material layer on the current collector (corresponding to the claimed first anode mixture layer on at least one surface of the anode current collector), further comprising a first negative electrode active material (Bae, [0010], lines 1-6)
A second negative electrode active material layer on the first negative electrode active material layer (corresponding to the claimed second anode mixture layer on the first anode mixture layer), further comprising a second negative electrode active material (Bae, [0010], lines 1-6)
Bae also teaches that the first and second negative electrode active materials may be a silicon-carbon composite (corresponding to the claimed first-silicon based active material and the second silicon-based active material) (Bae, [0014] lines 1-4). Bae further teaches a soft carbon coating on the silicon-carbon active material for the negative electrode (Bae, [0093], lines 1 & 7-8). Since carbon is known to be a conductive material, the soft carbon coating corresponds to the claimed first anode mixture layer includes a first silicon-based active material including a carbon coating layer formed on a surface thereof. Bae also teaches that the first or second negative electrode active materials may further comprise crystalline carbon (Bae, [0014], lines 1-4). Since crystalline carbon is known to be conductive, Bae’s teaching corresponds to the claimed first and second conductive materials. Bae does not teach a second silicon-based active material doped with a metal, and a second conductive material. However, Wu teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based core particle (corresponding to the claimed second silicon-based active material) that may further comprise lithium, magnesium, or aluminum (Wu, [0038], lines 1-5; [0044], lines 1-2; [0045], line 1, [0057], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Wu's metal doped silicon-based active material for the second silicon-based active material of modified Bae in order to improve the efficiency of the active material (Wu, [0049], lines 1-3).
Examiner notes that “the first conductive material has a Raman R value according to Equation 1 below, greater than or equal to a Raman R value of the second conductive material, and [Equation 1] Raman R = AD/AG where AD is a peak area value of an absorption region of 1330 to 1380 cm-1, and AG is a peak area value of an absorption region of 1550 to 1625 cm-1” is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of achieving the claimed Raman R value relationship between conductive materials. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The instant specification describes the Raman R value as representing relative crystallinity of a material (Instant specification, [0063], lines 1-2), therefore materials identical to the claimed first and second conductive materials would have the same relative crystallinities, respectively.
The instant specification states that the first conductive material may include at least one selected from among artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, carbon black, super P, and hard carbon (Instant specification, [0017], lines 1-2). Bae’s silicon-carbon composite may comprise crystalline or amorphous carbon, such as hard carbon, artificial graphite, natural graphite, or combinations thereof (Bae, [0037], lines 1-3; [0038], lines 1-4; [0039], lines 1-4), which corresponds and is identical to the disclosed graphite and hard carbon of the instant specification. The instant specification states that the second conductive material may include at least one selected from among a multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT), and a thin-walled carbon nanotube (TWCNT) (Instant specification, [0018], lines 1-2). Bae does not teach carbon nanotubes as a conductive material in the second negative electrode active material layer. Wu’s composite negative electrode active material may comprise a single-walled carbon nanotube (Wu, [0020], lines 1-4), which corresponds and is identical to the single-walled carbon nanotube of the instant specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wu's single-walled carbon nanotube to the second silicon-based active material of Bae in order to form a conductive network between active materials (Wu, [0029], lines 8-12). Since modified Bae’s amorphous or crystalline carbon and single-walled carbon nanotube are identical to applicant’s first and second conductive materials, modified Bae’s amorphous or crystalline carbon and single-walled carbon nanotube would also be capable of achieving the claimed Raman R value relationship between conductive materials.
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based core particle (corresponding to the claimed second silicon-based active material) that may further comprise lithium, magnesium, or aluminum (Wu, [0038], lines 1-5; [0044], lines 1-2; [0045], line 1, [0057], lines 1-2), as explained above in the rejection of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Wu's metal doped silicon-based active material for the second silicon-based active material of modified Bae in order to improve the efficiency of the active material (Wu, [0049], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bae teaches a range of 95wt% to 99.5wt% for the first negative electrode active material, based on the total weight of the first electrode active material layer (Bae, [0052], lines 1-4). Modified Bae teaches an identical range of 95wt% to 99.5wt% for the second negative electrode active material, based on the total weight of the second electrode active material layer (Bae, [0052], lines 5-8). Table 1 below shows examples determined by the examiner to demonstrate overlap of a content of the first negative electrode active material as less than or equal to a content of the second negative electrode active material, corresponding to the limitations of claim 3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Content of 1st active material
Content of 2nd active material
Relationship between content wt%
Example 1
95 wt%
95 wt%
1st = 2nd
Example 2
95 wt%
99.5 wt%
1st < 2nd
Table 1. Examples of first and second negative electrode active material weight percentages in modified Bae’s range, corresponding to the instant claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, modified Bae teaches a range of 95wt% to 99.5wt% for the first negative electrode active material in the first negative electrode active material layer, based on the total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer (Bae, [0052], lines 1-4). Modified Bae further teaches a ratio of 20:1 for the amount of crystalline carbon in the active material compared to amount of silicon-carbon composite in the active material (corresponding to the claimed first silicon-based active material) (Bae, [0046] lines 1-4). Therefore, a range of 4.52wt% to 4.74wt% silicon-carbon active material compared to the total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer would result from modified Bae’s teachings (corresponding to the claimed content of the first silicon-based active material included in the first anode mixture layer is 0.1 to 5wt%), as determined by examiner (See Equations 1 & 2 below).
95
w
t
%
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
1
s
t
l
a
y
e
r
×
1
21
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
i
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
4.52
w
t
%
Equation 1. Calculation for lower weight percent of the first silicon-carbon active material in the first negative electrode active material layer.
99.5
w
t
%
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
1
s
t
l
a
y
e
r
×
1
21
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
i
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
4.74
w
t
%
Equation 2. Calculation for upper weight percent of the first silicon-carbon active material in the first negative electrode active material layer.
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches a range of 90wt% to 98.5wt% for the amount of negative electrode active material in the negative electrode active material layer (corresponding to the claimed second anode mixture layer) (Wu, [0127], lines 1-2). Wu also teaches a weight ratio range of 10:90 to 20:80 for the composite negative electrode active material (corresponding to the claimed second silicon-based active material) to the carbon-based active material in the entire negative electrode material (Wu, [0126] lines 1-4). Therefore, a range of 9wt% to 9.85wt% composite negative electrode active material compared to the total weight of the entire negative electrode layer would result from Wu’s teachings (corresponding to the claimed content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer is 5 to 30wt%), as determined by examiner (See Equations 3 & 4 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wu's weight percent range to the second silicon-based active material of modified Bae in order to improve battery capacity and cycle characteristics (Wu, [0126], lines 5-6).
90
w
t
%
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
2
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
×
10
100
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
i
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
9
w
t
%
Equation 3. Calculation corresponding to the lower weight percent of the second silicon-carbon active material in the second negative electrode active material layer.
98.5
w
t
%
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
2
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
×
10
100
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
i
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
9.85
w
t
%
Equation 4. Calculation corresponding to the upper weight percent of the second silicon-carbon active material in the second negative electrode active material layer.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, examiner notes “the Raman R value of the first conductive material is 0.1 to 0.5” and “the Raman R value of the second conductive material is 0.001 to 0.1”, are instances of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of achieving the claimed Raman R value relationship between conductive materials. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Bae’s amorphous or crystalline carbon and single-walled carbon nanotube are identical to applicant’s first and second conductive materials. Therefore, modified Bae’s amorphous or crystalline carbon and single-walled carbon nanotube would also be capable of achieving the claimed Raman R value ranges for the first and second conductive materials, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, examiner interprets “hard carbon” as referring to amorphous carbon, based on the common meaning of the term. Furthermore, modified Bae teaches artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, or a combination thereof, as examples of crystalline or amorphous carbon included in the silicon-carbon active material (Bae, [0038], lines 1-4; [0039], lines 1-4). Therefore, Bae’s teachings corresponding to the claimed first conductive material as explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches the composite negative electrode active material comprising a single-walled carbon nanotube (Wu, [0020], lines 1-4), corresponding to the claimed second conductive material as explained above in the rejection of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wu's single-walled carbon nanotube to the second silicon-based active material of Bae in order to form a conductive network between active materials (Wu, [0029], lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches a composite anode active material comprising a carbon based active material, such as hard carbon, super P, carbon black, natural graphite, or artificial graphite (corresponding to the claimed first conductive material) (Wu, [00123], [0124], lines 1-5). Wu further teaches a particle diameter range of 10 µm to 20 µm for the carbon-based active material (Wu, [0125], lines 1-4), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1 µm to 10 µm first conductive material particle size. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wu's particle diameter range to the first conductive material of modified Bae in order to ensure structural stability during battery charging and discharging (Wu, [0125], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches a composite anode active material comprising a single-walled carbon nanotube (corresponding to the claimed second conductive material) (Wu, [0020], lines 1-4). Wu further teaches an average first single-walled carbon nanotube length range of 4.5 µm to 10 µm (Wu, [0062], lines 1-3), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 5 µm to 100 µm for the second conductive material length. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wu's single-walled carbon nanotube length range to the second conductive material of modified Bae in order to maintain a conductive network between the active material and the conductive structure (Wu, [0062], lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bae teaches a range of 0.1wt% to 2wt% of conductive material in the first negative electrode active material layer, based on the total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer (Bae, [0048] lines 1-4). Modified Bae also teaches a range of 0.5wt% to 2wt% of conductive material in the second negative electrode active material layer, based on the total weight of the second negative electrode active material layer (corresponding to the claimed content of the second conductive material included in the second anode mixture layer is 0.01 to 0.3wt%) (Bae, [0049], lines 1-5). Table 2 below shows examples determined by the examiner to demonstrate weight percentages within modified Bae’s ranges correspond to the instant claim 12.
Content of 1st conductive material
Content of 2nd conductive material
Relationship between content wt%
Example 1
2 wt%
2 wt%
1st = 2nd
Example 2
2 wt%
0.5 wt%
1st > 2nd
Table 2. Examples of first and second conductive material weight percentages in modified Bae’s range, corresponding to the instant claim 12.
Regarding claims 13, modified Bae teaches a range of 0.1wt% to 2wt% of conductive material in the first negative electrode active material layer, based on the total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer (Bae, [0048] lines 1-4). Modified Bae’s range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.3wt% to 5wt% for the first conductive material included in the first anode mixture layer. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches a range of 90wt% to 98.5wt% for the amount of negative electrode active material in the negative electrode active material layer (corresponding to the claimed second anode mixture layer) (Wu, [0127], lines 1-2). Wu also teaches a range of 0.055wt% to 0.45wt% for the single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) (corresponding to the claimed second conductive material), compared to the weight of the composite negative electrode active material (Wu, [0088] lines 1-3). Therefore, a range of 0.0495wt% to 0.44wt% SWCNTs compared to the total weight of the entire negative electrode material layer would result from Wu’s teachings, as determined by examiner (See Equations 3 & 4 below). Wu’s range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.01wt% to 0.3wt% for the second conductive material in the second anode mixture layer. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Wu's single-walled carbon nanotube weight range to the second conductive material of modified Bae in order to form a uniform conductive network and improve conductivity (Wu, [0088], lines 4-7).
90
w
t
%
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
2
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
×
0.055
w
t
%
S
W
C
N
T
i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
0.0495
w
t
%
Equation 5. Calculation corresponding to the lower weight percent of the second conductive material in the second negative electrode active material layer.
98.5
w
t
%
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
n
2
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
×
0.45
w
t
%
S
W
C
N
T
i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
≅
0.44
w
t
%
Equation 6. Calculation corresponding to the upper weight percent of the second conductive material in the second negative electrode active material layer.
Regarding claim 15, modified Bae teaches a rechargeable lithium battery including the negative electrode described in the rejection of claim 1 (Bae, [0003] lines 1-3; [0061], lines, 1-2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-20 of copending Application No. 18/801,855, hereinafter “the ‘855 application”, in view of Bae (CN 114520315 B) and Wu (CN 114303260 A), wherein English translations of Bae and Wu are cited.
Regarding the instant claim 1, claims 1 and 13 of the ‘855 application teach the same limitations as the instant claims, but do not teach the first conductive material has a Raman R value according to Equation 1 below, greater than or equal to a Raman R value of the second conductive material, and [Equation 1] Raman R = AD/AG where AD is a peak area value of an absorption region of 1330 to 1380 cm-1, and AG is a peak area value of an absorption region of 1550 to 1625 cm-1.
As stated previously in the prior art rejection of the instant claim 1 above, the limitation recited above is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of achieving the claimed Raman R value relationship between conductive materials. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The instant specification describes the Raman R value as representing relative crystallinity of a material (Instant specification, [0063], lines 1-2), therefore materials identical to the claimed first and second conductive materials would have the same relative crystallinities, respectively.
As stated in the prior art rejections of the instant claims 1 and 8 above, Bae’s silicon-carbon composite comprising hard carbon, artificial graphite, natural graphite, or combinations thereof (Bae, [0037], lines 1-3; [0038], lines 1-4; [0039], lines 1-4), corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first conductive material includes at least one selected from among artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, carbon black, super P, and hard carbon. As stated in the prior art rejections of the instant claims 1 and 9 above, Wu’s composite negative electrode active material comprising a single-walled carbon nanotube (Wu, [0020], lines 1-4), corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the second conductive material includes at least one selected from among a multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT), and a thin-walled carbon nanotube (TWCNT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Bae’s silicon-carbon composite for the first conductive material of the ‘984 application in order to increase volume expansion during charging and discharging (Bae, [0037], lines 4-10) and to substitute Wu's single-walled carbon nanotube for the second conductive material of the ‘984 application in order to form a conductive network between active materials (Wu, [0029], lines 8-12).
Further regarding the instant claim 1, claims 1 and 13 of the ‘855 application do not teach the limitation of the second anode mixture layer includes a second silicon-based active material doped with a metal. Wu teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based core particle (corresponding to the claimed second silicon-based active material) that may further comprise lithium, magnesium, or aluminum (Wu, [0038], lines 1-5; [0044], lines 1-2; [0045], line 1, [0057], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Wu's metal doped silicon-based active material for the second silicon-based active material of the ‘855 application in order to improve the efficiency of the active material (Wu, [0049], lines 1-3).
Regarding the instant claim 4, claims 4 and 14 of the ‘855 application teach the same limitations as the instant claim.
Regarding the instant claim 5, claims 5 and 15 of the ‘855 application teach a range of 6wt% to 35wt% for a content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer, which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 5wt% to 30wt% second silicon-based active material in the second anode mixture layer. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding the instant claims 6 and 7, claim 16 of the ‘855 application teaches the same limitations as the instant claims.
Regarding the instant claim 8, claims 7 and 17 of the ‘855 application teach a first conductive material may be any one material selected from a group comprising the same materials recited in the instant claim.
Regarding the instant claim 9, claims 8 and 18 of the ‘855 application teach the same limitations as the instant claim.
Regarding the instant claim 12, claims 9 and 19 of the ‘855 application teach a range of a content of the first conductive material in the first anode mixture layer is greater than a content of the second conductive material in the second anode mixture layer, which meets the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding the instant claim 14, claim 10 of the ‘855 application teaches a range of 0.01% to 0.25% by weight of the second conductive material in the second anode mixture layer, which meets the limitations of the instant claim .
Regarding the instant claims 10, 11, 13, and 15, claim 11, 12, 13, and 20 of the ‘855 application teach the same limitations as the instant claims, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-14 of copending Application No. 18/432,984, hereinafter “the ‘984 application”, in view of Bae (CN 114520315 B) and Wu (CN 114303260 A), wherein English translations of Bae and Wu are cited.
Regarding the instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘984 application teaches the same limitations as the instant claim, but does not teach the first conductive material has a Raman R value according to Equation 1 below, greater than or equal to a Raman R value of the second conductive material, and [Equation 1] Raman R = AD/AG where AD is a peak area value of an absorption region of 1330 to 1380 cm-1, and AG is a peak area value of an absorption region of 1550 to 1625 cm-1. As stated previously in the prior art rejection of claim 1 above, the limitation recited above is an instance of functional language which only imparts a structure that is capable of achieving the claimed Raman R value relationship between conductive materials. See MPEP 2173.05(g). The instant specification describes the Raman R value as representing relative crystallinity of a material (Instant specification, [0063], lines 1-2), therefore materials identical to the claimed first and second conductive materials would have the same relative crystallinities, respectively.
As stated in the prior art rejections of the instant claims 1 and 8 above, Bae’s silicon-carbon composite comprising hard carbon, artificial graphite, natural graphite, or combinations thereof (Bae, [0037], lines 1-3; [0038], lines 1-4; [0039], lines 1-4), corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the first conductive material includes at least one selected from among artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, carbon black, super P, and hard carbon. As stated in the prior art rejections of the instant claims 1 and 9 above, Wu’s composite negative electrode active material comprising a single-walled carbon nanotube (Wu, [0020], lines 1-4), corresponds to the claimed structural limitation of the second conductive material includes at least one selected from among a multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT), and a thin-walled carbon nanotube (TWCNT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Bae’s silicon-carbon composite for the first conductive material of the ‘984 application in order to increase volume expansion during charging and discharging (Bae, [0037], lines 4-10), and to substitute Wu's single-walled carbon nanotube for the second conductive material of the ‘984 application in order to form a conductive network between active materials (Wu, [0029], lines 8-12).
Regarding the instant claims 2-5 and 8-15, claims 3-14 of the ‘984 application teach the same limitations as the instant claims, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (EP 4224562 A1) teaches a secondary battery negative electrode comprising artificial graphite with an average particle diameter of 8µm to 30µm.
Zhou et al. (CN 117059736 A) teaches a negative electrode comprising silicon oxide, graphite, a conductive agent, and carbon nanotubes.
Wang et al. (CN 115832212 B) teaches a doubled coated negative electrode comprising an active material, conductive agent and carbon microtubes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights