DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/437,491.
This is a continuation of PCT/CN2021/112520, filed August 13, 2021.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 11, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al (EP 3624235A1, wherein the English Machine translation is submitted by the Examiner is cited herein), in view of HIRAHARA et al (US Patent 6,064,560).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, JO et al teaches an electrochemical apparatus (multilayer electrode and battery, abstract/title, also reading on the overall electronic apparatus of a battery and any device utilizing said battery, as required by claim 11), comprising a negative electrode (multilayer electrode, paragraph [0057], anode);
wherein, the negative electrode comprises a porous carbon material layer (110, conductive material carbon (paragraph [0042]) and a negative electrode active material layer (130, “second electrode mixture layer”, active material is carbon also (paragraph [0057])) (To be clear, a second interpretation can switch these two layers, wherein the negative electrode active material layer can be 110 and the porous carbon material layer as 130, based on the material uses above);
the porous carbon material layer comprises porous carbon material particles (paragraph [0014]).
JO et al is silent to each porous carbon material particle comprises at least two types of pores among micropores, mesopores, and macropores; and the at least two types of pores communicate with each other; wherein, a pore size of each micropore is < 2 nm; 2 nm ≤ a pore size of each mesopore ≤ 50 nm; and 50 nm < a pore size of each macropore ≤ 500 nm.
HIRAHARA et al teaches a carbon material for negative electrodes in the Field of Invention, just as in JO et al. HIRAHARA et al further teaches the use of micro and mesopores within the carbon material (c. 2, l. 37-40, and the agglomerated particles, see figure 3) which increases the rate of adsorption (c. 8, l. 16-24).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a carbon material featuring micropores and mesopores, as in HIRAHARA et al, for the carbon material of JO et al, so as to increase the rate of adsorption within a lithium secondary cell’s negative electrode.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, modified JO et al teaches wherein the negative electrode has (b) a thickness of the porous carbon material layer (110, first electrode mixture) is less than a thickness of the negative electrode active material layer (130, second electrode mixture) (paragraph [0015] teaches the thickness of the second electrode mixture/negative electrode active material layer is 80% of the total thickness, rendering the first electrode mixture/porous carbon material layer 20% of the total, reading on a smaller thickness); (c) the each porous carbon material particle comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of activated carbon (Detailed description and abstract, HIRAHARA et al).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified JO et al teaches the negative electrode (under the second interpretation detailed in claim 1) further comprises a negative electrode current collector (10); and the negative electrode active material layer (110) is located between the porous carbon material layer (130) and the negative electrode current collector (10).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, modified JO et al teaches the negative electrode further comprises a conductive layer (10, paragraph [0056], when the current collector comprises a stainless steel surface-treated with sintered carbon, the current collector reads on the stainless steel surface and the conductive layer is the sintered carbon or the opposite wherein the current collector reads on the sintered carbon and the conductive layer is the stainless steel surface); and the conductive layer (coating of 10) is located between the negative electrode active material layer (110) and the negative electrode current collector (10 interior thereof).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al, in view of HIRAHARA et al and THOMPKINS et al (US PG PUB 2013/0252082).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, JO et al teaches the carbon to be a group of different carbon materials in paragraph [0022] and HIRAHARA teaches the use of a bimodal pore size in example 1, figure 3, wherein the pore volume V1 of micropores about .55 cc/g and a total volume of pores V1+V2+V3 of 1.65 cc/g, as shown in figure 3, to render a V1/(V1+V2+V3) of 33%, but fails to expressly teaches where V1/(V1+V2+V3) ≤ 20%.
THOMPKINS et al the use of carbon materials for electrodes with micro and mesopore sizes in paragraph [0176], just as in modified JO et al. Moreover, THOMPKINS et al teaches the use of more mesopores for pathways and particle dopants such as conductive additives in paragraph [0176]. Moreover, THOMPKINS et al teaches the use of micro to mesoporous materials of use in electrodes as anywhere from 95:5 to 5:95 in pore volume comparison in paragraph [0179] or bimodal distribution of micropores to mesopores in a proportion of 1:10 in paragraph [0185].
At the time of filing, the use of more mesopores compared to the presence of micropores in the carbon material of modified JO et al, as detailed in THOMPKINS et al, will allow for more pathways and locations for particle dopants. By increasing the amount of mesopores, the pore volume of the V1+V2+V3 term will increase, decreasing the value of V1/(V1+V2+V3). It would be well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a value as low as 5% as the V1/(V1+V2+V3) term, based on the disclosure of THOMPKINS et al.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JO et al, in view of HIRAHARA et al and WANG et al (US PG PUB 2011/0168550).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, modified JO et al teaches a separator (paragraph [0005]) to be of use and the negative electrode to comprise the porous carbon material layer (130) on the exterior of the stack (opposite the current collector 10) in the second interpretation of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein, the porous carbon material layer is located between the separator and the negative electrode active material layer.
WANG et al teaches an electrode structure and separator within a lithium battery in paragraph [0046], just as in JO et al. WANG et al further teaches the stack of current collector 131a/negative electrode 122a/separator 124a/positive electrode 123a/current collector 133a in figure 1B to serve as a complete working bi-layer cell of a lithium ion battery, wherein the separator provides fluid communication between the positive and negative electrodes to ensure functionality (paragraph [0046]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the separator of JO et al and WANG et al, adjacent to the negative electrode layers of JO et al, so as to allow for fluid communication between the anode and cathode via the separator and complete the working cell. By placing the separator in contact with the negative electrode structure on the side opposing the current collector of JO et al, as in WANG et al, the porous carbon layer (130) is between the separator and negative electrode active material layer (110).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, WANG et al teaches integrating the separator with the top of the negative electrode layer in paragraph [0016] to simplify manufacturing, and since the porous carbon layer (130) is the exposed layer of the stack, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious for the porous carbon material layer to be in contact with the separator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest available prior art includes the above cited combination of JO et al, HIRAHARA et al and THOMPKINS et al and additionally cited GUO et al (CN106882783A, wherein an English machine translation is cited herein, cited as GUO ‘783) and GUO et al (US PG PUB 2021/0143414A1, cited as GUO ‘414). GUO ‘783 teaches the use of a microporous, mesoporous and macroporous carbon material with ranges of different pore volumes of each type of pore (claim 4 of GUO et al) and just as in the combination of JO et al, WANG et al and THOMPKINS et al above. GUO ‘414 teaches manipulating the size of the pores in the active material in the first and second mixtures (paragraph [0034]) then teaches these pore sizes to be consistent with mesopores in the smaller average pore size layer and macropores in the larger average pore size layer (see paragraph [0043]), providing no guidance as to the micropore values needed for the claimed ratio. JO et al teaches the use of differing porosities of the layers (110/130) in paragraphs [0010] and [0013], with larger pores being present in the more porous second electrode mixture layer and smaller pores being present in the less porous first electrode mixture layer (that which is closer to the current collector). The smaller pores of the first electrode mixture layer are not taught to be particle pore sizes and further are taught to be sized between 0 and 0.01 micron (10 nm), representative of both the micropore and mesopore ranges, providing no guidance as to how to allocate pores within the microporous, mesoporous and macroporous regions to achieve the discussed benefits. Moreover, HIRAHARA et al teaches the benefits of both micropores and mesopores (3rd paragraph of the Detailed Description Section), wherein large amounts of micropores allow for large surface area but low rates of adsorption and large amounts of mesopores allow for smaller surface area but inadequate performance, but lack a teaching, suggestion or motivation of optimizing these benefits for different layers. However, the available prior art lacks a teaching, suggestion or motivation to manipulate the micropore volume per total pore volume of the negative active material particles relative to the micropore volume per the total pore volume of the porous carbon material particle, especially in light of the benefit recognized by this relationship in the instant specification at paragraph [0039], rendering a negative electrode of claim 1 which further “comprises negative electrode active material particles; each negative electrode active material particle comprises at least two types of pores among micropores, mesopores, and macropores; and V1/(V1+V2+V3) < P1/(P1+P2+P3) is satisfied; wherein, V1 in cm3/g is a pore volume of the micropores of the each porous carbon material particle; V2 in cm3/g is a pore volume of the mesopores of the each porous carbon material particle; V3 in cm3/g is a pore volume of the macropores of the each porous carbon material particle; P1 in cm3/g is a pore volume of the micropores in the each negative electrode active material particle; P2 in cm3/g is a pore volume of the mesopores in the each negative electrode active material particle; and P3 in cm3/g is a pore volume of the macropores in the each negative electrode active material particle”. Claim 5 depends on the above claim 4, also rendering the subject matter free of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 7197089, as provided by the Applicant, further teaches the use of carbon material with different size pores therein.
US PG PUB 20220344636 also reads on at least claims 1 and 11 teaching micropores and mesopores within conductive particles, paragraphs [0014]-[0017].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights