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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teach the combination of claimed limitations present in claim 1 and does not provide sufficient motivation to make the invention obvious as a whole. Park, US20180219217A1 teaches a multilayered anode comprising the claimed mixing ratio for the first active material mixture [0039], and Wang, US20160204422A1 teaches a multilayered anode material comprising the claimed materials present in the second active material mixture [0024][0027][0029][0038]. However, Wang does not teach the claimed second weight ratio.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US20180219217A1, Wang, US20160204422A1.
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches a method for manufacturing an anode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
applying a slurry for forming a first anode active material layer on at least one surface of an anode current collector, thereby forming the first anode active material layer on the at least one surface of the anode current collector [0013];
applying a slurry for forming a second anode active material layer on the first anode active material layer, thereby forming the second anode active material layer [0013]; and
drying the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer, thereby forming the anode [0013],
wherein the first anode active material layer contains a mixture of natural graphite and artificial graphite as the anode active material and a first binder respectively [0039].,
Park does not teach wherein the second anode active material layer contains a mixture of artificial graphite and a silicon-based compound as the anode active material and a second binder respectively, and wherein a weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder is 1 to 2:1.
Wang teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a multilayer anode [0008] wherein the second anode active material layer contains a mixture of artificial graphite (non-limited graphite selection)[0020] and a silicon-based compound as the anode active material and a second binder respectively (silicon layer containing graphite)[0020][0024] wherein a weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder is 1 to 2:1 (1:1)[0037][0038]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, Wang teaches that silicon anodes have a reduced degradation in capacity [0008]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second active material layer composition of Wang into the battery of Park to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches the method of claim 17.
Further, Park teaches wherein a thickness ratio of the first anode active material layer to the second anode active material layer is 30 to 50:50 to 70 (1 to 3:5 to 9). 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 20, combined Park teaches the method of claim 17.
Further, Park teaches wherein the weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder is 1.3 to 1.7:1 (1 to 3:5 to 9). 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US20180219217A1, Wang, US20160204422A1, as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Lee, KR20160087121A.
Regarding claim 18, combined Park teaches the method of claim 17.
Combined Park does not teach wherein the silicon-based compound is a silicon-based oxide represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: SiOx [Chemical Formula] wherein 0<x<2.
Lee teaches a multilayer anode material [0001] comprising wherein the second anode active material layer contains a mixture of artificial graphite and a silicon-based compound as the anode active material and a second binder respectively [0012][0013][0033] wherein the silicon-based compound is a silicon-based oxide represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: SiOx [Chemical Formula] wherein 0<x<2 [0034]. Further, Lee teaches the silicon material to have excellent processability and capacity retention [0011]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the silicon material of Lee into the battery of combined Park to improve processability and capacity retention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights