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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 14 need to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2023090847 A1 using ID:US 20250015258 A1 as translation).
As to Claim 1, Kim discloses:
An anode for a secondary battery comprising: an anode current collector; (“A negative electrode including a negative electrode current collector” in (see figure 10 and paragraph (57) from Abstract);
a first anode mixture layer on at least one surface of the anode current collector;
(“a first negative electrode active material layer on the negative electrode current collector” in
(see figure 10, and paragraph (57) from Abstract));
and a second anode mixture layer on the first anode mixture layer,
(“and a second negative electrode active material layer on the first negative electrode active material layer” in (see figure 10 paragraph(57) from Abstract); wherein the first anode mixture layer includes a first silicon-based active material having a carbon coating layer formed on a surface, and a first conductive material, (“The first silicon-containing active material may further include a carbon coating layer that is disposed on a surface thereof” in (paragraph [0039])).
The second anode mixture layer includes a second (“The second carbon-containing active material, a second silicon-containing active material, and a second binder.” in (see figure 10, paragraph (57) from Abstract) silicon-based active material doped with a metal, and a second conductive material and anode for a secondary battery exhibits a Radial breathing mode (RBM) peak in Raman spectrum obtained from a surface of the anode mixture layer. (“The second silicon-based active material may include a second silicon-based compound represented by SiO.sub.y (0≤y<2) and a second metal doped in the second silicon-based compound ” In (paragraph [0061])).
While Kim does not explicitly disclose (“the anode for a secondary battery exhibits a Radial Breathing Mode (RBM) peak in a Raman spectrum obtained from a surface of the second anode mixture layer,”) Kim discloses the incorporation of SWCNTs as the second conductive material in (specification, paragraph[0141]). The Applicant’s specification evidences that the carbon nanotubes as the conductive material exhibit a RBM peak in (instant specification, [101]). Therefore, even though Kim does not disclose the claimed property, since Kim’s anode also has SWCNTs as the second conductive material the instantly claimed property in (“exhibits a RBM peak”) would be necessarily present in the anode of Kim. In (see document (MPEP 2112.01.))
As to Claim 2, , while Kim does not explicitly disclose “the anode for the secondary battery exhibits G-band splitting in the Raman spectrum obtained from the surface of the second anode mixture layer”,
Kim discloses the incorporation of second conductive material which improve conductivity (“The second conductive material may be used to improve conductivity of the second negative electrode active material layer, and it is preferable that the second conductive material has conductivity without causing chemical changes. Specifically, the second conductive material may be at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, conductive fibers, Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (SWCNT), Multi-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNT), ” in (paragraph [0078])).
Also, Kim discloses the incorporation of SWCNTs as the second conductive material in (specification, paragraph[0141]). The Applicant’s specification evidences that the carbon nanotubes as the conductive material exhibit a RBM peak in (instant specification, [101]). Therefore, even though Kim does not disclose the claimed property, since Kim’s anode also has SWCNTs as the second conductive material the instantly claimed property in (“exhibits a RBM peak and pick is G-band splitting”) would be necessarily present in the anode of Kim. In (see document (MPEP 2112.01.))
As to Claim 3, Kim discloses:
The anode of claim 1, wherein the metal is at least one selected from lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), or aluminum (AI) (“The first metal may include at least one metal selected from the group consisting of lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and aluminum (Al). Specifically, the first metal may include at least one selected from the group consisting of Li and Mg, more specifically, Mg in terms of the fact that volume expansion control of silicon-based oxide particles, damage prevention, and an effect of improving initial efficiency may be achieved at an excellent level.” In (paragraph [0037])).
As to Claim 7, Kim discloses:
The anode of claim 1, wherein the first conductive material is any one selected from artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphene, carbon black, Super P, hard carbon, and combinations thereof.
(“The first carbon-based active material may include at least one selected from the group consisting of artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, carbon black, graphene, and fibrous carbon, and may specifically include at least one selected from the group consisting of artificial graphite and natural graphite.” in (paragraph [0030])).
As to Claim 8, Kim discloses:
The anode of claim 1, wherein the second conductive material is any one selected from multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), single-walled carbon nanotubes(SWCNT), thin-walled carbon nanotubes(TWCNT), and combinations thereof.
(“The second conductive material may be used to improve conductivity of the second negative electrode active material layer, and it is preferable that the second conductive material has conductivity without causing chemical changes. Specifically, the second conductive material may be at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, conductive fibers, Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (SWCNT), Multi-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNT)” In (paragraph [0078]))
As to Claim 14, Kim discloses:
A lithium secondary battery comprising the anode for a secondary battery according to claim 1.
(“ An aspect of the present invention provides a negative electrode in which life performance of a battery,” in (paragraph [0010])).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
262
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 4-6, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim (WO 2023090847 A1 using ID:US 20250015258 A1 as translation)
As to Claim 4, Kim discloses:
The anode of claim 1, wherein the content of the first silicon-based active material included in the first anode mixture layer is less than or equal to a content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer. (“The first silicon-based active material may be included in an amount of 1 wt % to 20 wt %, specifically, 3 wt % to 15 wt % in the first negative electrode active material layer “. “in (paragraph [0043])) and (“The second silicon-containing active material may be included in an amount of 1 wt % to 20 wt %, specifically, 3 wt % to 15 wt % in the second negative electrode active material layer .” in (paragraph [0071])) according to Kim these two silicon-base active material have the same/or ”=” ranges of amount of material. The Identical prior art ranges of 1 wt % to 20 wt %, specifically, 3 wt % to 15 wt % for each material are selectable to be identical and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
As to Claim 5,
Kim discloses a particle size is 1 to 20 % by weight [0043], which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.1 wt % to 5 wt %, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
As to Claim 6,
Kim discloses the second silicon-containing active material may be included in an amount of 3 wt % to 15 wt % in the second negative electrode active material layer [0071] which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 5 to 30% by weight and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
As to Claim 9,
Kim discloses a particle size is 5 um to 35 um ([0031]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1 um to 10 um, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.”
As to Claim 11, Kim discloses:
The anode of claim 1, wherein a content of the first conductive material included in the first anode mixture layer is greater than or equal to a content of the second conductive material included in the second anode mixture layer (“The first conductive material may be included in an amount of 0.001 wt % to 10 wt%, specifically, 0.01 wt% to 1 wt% in the first negative electrode active material
layer ” in (paragraph [0051])) and (“The second conductive material may be included in an amount of 0.001 wt % to 10 wt %, specifically, 0.01 wt % to 1 wt % in the second negative electrode active material layer” in (paragraph {0079])). The Identical prior art ranges of 0.001 wt % to 10 wt%, specifically, 0.01 wt% to 1 wt% for each material are selectable to be identical and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
As to Claim 12,
Kim discloses in amount 0.001 wt % to 10 wt % ([0051]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.3 to 5 % by weight, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.”
As to Claim 13,
Kim discloses in amount 0.01 wt % to 1 wt % ([0079]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 0.3% by weight, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. & 103(a) over Kim in view of Shevchenko
(US 20160308263 A1).
Kim discloses (“The second conductive material may be at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, conductive fibers, Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (SWCNT), Multi-Wall Carbon Nanotubes (MWCNT),” in (paragraph [0078]))
Kim did not disclose wherein a length of the second conductive material is 5 to 100 um.
Chevchenko discloses (“The carbon nanotubes preferably have lengths in the range of about 0.5 to about 200 μm (e.g., about 1 to about 25 μm), and typically are mixtures of carbon nanotubes with various lengths in this range.” (In Paragraph [0017]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the length of the second conductive material from Chevchenko with the description of active material layer of Kim because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately “conductivity function” and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).
Also, Chevchenko discloses a particle size is 0.5 um to 200 um, which broader overlaps the instantly claimed range of 5 um to 100 um, and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. 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 select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELENA BAZELYAN SOBOLEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/GELENA BAZELYAN SOBOLEWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights