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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashimo et al. (US20220278315A1).
Regarding claim 1 Mashimo discloses a negative electrode (e.g. Fig. 1A), comprising: a negative electrode current collector (12); and a negative electrode active material layer (14) including a negative electrode active material, wherein the negative active material layer (14) includes a first region (22) and a second region (24).
Mashimo discloses a density of the first region of 3.8 g/cc and a density of the second region of 3.5 g/cc (Table 1, Ex. 1's higher- and lower-density regions, respectively), meaning the second region's density is about 8% less than the first regions, falling within at least 7% less.
As seen in Fig. 1D and 2, Mashimo discloses an equal pitch in the pattern of high and low density regions (see also [0063]), which appears to suggest approximately equal volumes of the first and second regions in the active material layer. Mashimo discloses that the low -density regions ,i.e., second region, have a relatively large number of voids, which assist in lithium insertion and desorption to promote movement of Li ions ([0063]), while the high- density regions, i.e., first region, have a relatively small number of voids, which improves contact between the active materials and conductive material to form a suitable conductive path([0063]). Further, by forming the region at an equal pitch, the entire active layer can efficiently contribute to an electrochemical reaction to improve battery performance ([0063]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, therefore, that each of the “first” and “second” regions in Mashimo would occupy a large enough volume to ensure a suitable balance of ion diffusion and electrical conductivity without compromising either region’s effect.
Although Mashimo may fail to explicitly disclose that a volume ratio of the second region to the negative electrode active material layer is more than 7% and not more than 50%, to balance the desired ion diffusion and electrical conductivity, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed inventions effective filing date, to arrive at this range by routinely optimizing volume of each of the “first” and “second” regions within the active layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Mashimo discloses the negative electrode, wherein the second region is in grid form (as seen in Fig. 1D the pattern shows a grid of low density and high-density regions).
Regarding claim 3, Mashimo discloses the negative electrode according to claim one, wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a plurality of the second regions (as seen in the pattern in the low density regions 22 in Fig. 1D), the second regions are columnar (as seen in Fig. 2’s cross section).
Mashimo’s discloses, as seen in Fig. 1D, that the second regions are diagonally connected, meaning the shortest distance between them would be approximately 0 μm, falling within 50 μm or less.
Regarding claim 5, Mashimo discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising the negative electrode according to claim 1(as seen in Fig. 10).
6. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashimo et al. (US20220278315A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190305299 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mashimo discloses the negative electrode according to claim 1, Mashimo discloses an overall electrode density ([0054]) but fails to disclose this value as a coating weight in terms of mg/cm3 and thus, fails to explicitly disclose that a coating weight of the negative electrode active material is 20 mg/cm3 or more.
However, one skilled in the art would understand that coating weight is controlled by coating thickness, and Mashimo discloses that the active material layer is preferably thicker to increase battery capacity ([0052]). The skilled artisan, on the other hand, would also realize that making the active material layer too thick would necessarily increase ion-diffusion distance across the electrode and, therefore, resistance (as implied by [0058]).
To ensure suitable balance of capacity and ionic resistance, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited coating weight of the active material layer by routinely optimizing the thickness and, therefore, the coating weight (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Further, Zhang teaches electrodes for electrochemical cells like secondary batteries ([0002]), teaching that the anode active material is coated at an areal density, i.e., coating weight, preferably greater than 25 mg/cm3 ([0026]). Zhang teaches that such an electrode displays improved energy density and high-capacity retention at rates equal to C/2 ([0022]).
It would be obvious to configure Mashimo’s anode active material layer with a coating weight of greater than 25 mg/cm3, falling within 20 mg/cm3 or more, with the reasonable expectation of achieving improved energy density and high-capacity retention at rates equal to C/2 as taught by Zhang.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230064681: electrode with striped patterns of low and high density regions
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DESIRAE N NANCE whose telephone number (571)272-0628. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/D.N.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
