utDETAILED 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 .
Priority
The instant application was effectively filed on 21 August 2023, but claims priority to a Japanese Patent Application (App. No.: KR10-2022-0136243) filed on 21 October 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 August 2023 and 01 July 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0102708), in view of Park et al. (WO 2022/065846, with U.S. Pub. US 2023/0352665 relied upon as translation) and Sakshaug et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2017/0170477).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an anode (10, Fig. 2) for a lithium secondary battery (see [0003]), comprising:
an anode current collector (101, Fig. 2);
a first anode mixture layer (103, Fig. 2) disposed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (101) and including a first carbon-based active material (artificial graphite, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]) and a silicon-based active material (silicon monoxide, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]) including a porous structure (see [0046]); and
a second anode mixture layer (102, Fig. 2) disposed on the first anode mixture layer (103) and including a second carbon-based active material (artificial graphite, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]) and a silicon-based active material (silicon monoxide, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]),
but does not teach a silicon-based active material doped with magnesium, and wherein the porous structure includes carbon-based particles including pores and a silicon-containing coating disposed inside of the pores of the carbon-based particles or on surfaces of the carbon-based particles.
However, Park teaches a silicon-based active material (silicon-based-carbon composite, [0074]) doped with magnesium (see [0074-0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon-based active material of the second anode mixture layer to be doped with magnesium, as taught by Park, to enhance the cycle characteristics of the battery (see [0076]).
Wang, in view of Park, still does not teach wherein the porous structure includes carbon-based particles including pores and a silicon-containing coating disposed inside of the pores of the carbon-based particles or on surfaces of the carbon-based particles.
However, Sakshaug teaches a silicon-based active material (silicon carbon composite, [0414]), wherein the porous structure includes carbon-based particles including pores (porous carbon scaffold, [0414]) and a silicon-containing coating disposed inside of the pores of the carbon-based particles or on surfaces of the carbon-based particles (embedded within pores, [0414]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the porous structure of the silicon-based active material of the first anode mixture layer of Wang, in view of Park, such that the silicon-containing coating was disposed in the pores of the carbon-based particles, as taught by Sakshaug, to provide room for the silicon to expand and contract within the carbon pores ([0189]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, teaches wherein the silicon-based active material of the first anode mixture layer (silicon carbon composite, [0414] of Sakshaug, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) includes a Si-C composite.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, teaches wherein the silicon-based active material of the second anode mixture layer (silicon monoxide, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]) includes SiOx (0<x<2).
Regarding claim 4, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, teaches wherein the first carbon-based active material (artificial graphite, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]) and the second carbon-based active material (artificial graphite, Example 14, Table 1, see [0171]) are, independently, at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, graphitized carbon fibers, graphitized mesocarbon microbeads, and amorphous carbon.
Regarding claim 5, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, teaches wherein a weight ratio of the silicon-based active material and the first carbon-based active material included in the first anode mixture layer is 1:5 to 20 (1:18.2, Example 14, Table 1, see [0030]).
It is the position of the Examiner that since the mass/weight percentage of silicon (W1) in the first layer of Example 14 is 5%, and the sum of the other listed components (conductive agent, binder, and thickener) of Example 14’s first layer is 4%, the remaining 91% mass percentage would be graphite. Thus, the ratio of silicon:carbon is 5:91 or 1:18.2, and falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, does not teach wherein a weight ratio of the silicon-based active material and the second carbon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer is 1:4 to 16. However, in an alternate embodiment, Wang teaches wherein a weight ratio of the silicon-based active material and the second carbon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer is 1:4 to 16 (1:15, Example 8, Table 1, see [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the weight ratio of the silicon-based active material and the second carbon-based active material in the second anode mixture layer of Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, such that it was 1:15, as taught by Wang, to make the ratio of silicon in the second layer higher than that of the first layer, providing a higher energy density ([0027 and 0180]).
It is the position of the Examiner that since the mass/weight percentage of silicon (W1) in the first layer of Example 8 is 6%, and the sum of the other listed components (conductive agent, binder, and thickener) of Example 8’s first layer is 4%, the remaining 90% mass percentage would be graphite. Thus, the ratio of silicon:carbon is 6:90 or 1:15, and falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, does not teach wherein a thickness ratio of the first anode mixture layer and the second anode mixture layer is 1:1 to 1.25.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Wang teaches wherein a thickness ratio of the first anode mixture layer and the second anode mixture layer is 1:1 to 1.25 (4:6 to 7:3, [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness ratio of the first and second anode mixture layers of Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, such that it is between 1:1 and 1:1.25, as taught by Wang, to provide better energy density, fast charging capability, and cycle performance ([0062]). Further, it has been held that optimization of overlapping ranges requires only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality for the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, does not teach wherein at least one of silicon-based active materials of the second anode mixture layer has a carbon coating layer disposed on an outermost portion.
However, Sakshaug teaches wherein at least one of silicon-based active materials of the second anode mixture layer (silicon carbon composite, [0200]) has a carbon coating layer disposed on an outermost portion (terminal carbon coating, [0200 and 0222]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon-based active materials of the second anode mixture layer, of Wang, in view of Park and Sakshaug, such that it has a carbon coating layer at the outermost portion, as taught by Sakshaug, to improve electrochemical performance ([0200]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang, in view of Park and SakshaugA lithium secondary battery (5, Fig. 1) comprising: the anode according to claim 1 (10, Fig. 2, see rejection of claim 1); and a cathode (positive electrode plate, [0170]) disposed to face the anode (see [0170]).
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 1-4, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, and 16 of issued patent US 12,456,725 [hereinafter ‘725].
Regarding claim 1, ‘725 teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising:
an anode current collector (claim 1 of ‘725);
a first anode mixture layer disposed on at least one surface of the anode current collector (claim 2 of ‘725) and including a first carbon-based active material and a silicon-based active material (claim 3 of ‘725) including a porous structure (claim 1 of ‘725); and
a second anode mixture layer disposed on the first anode mixture layer (claim 2 of ‘725) and including a second carbon-based active material (claim 3 of ‘725) and a silicon-based active material doped with magnesium (claim 12 of ‘725),
wherein the porous structure includes carbon-based particles including pores and a silicon-containing coating disposed inside of the pores of the carbon-based particles or on surfaces of the carbon-based particles (claim 1 of ‘725).
Regarding claim 2, ‘725 teaches wherein the silicon-based active material of the first anode mixture layer includes a Si—C composite (claim 1 of ‘725).
Regarding claim 3, ‘725 teaches wherein the silicon-based active material of the second anode mixture layer includes SiOx (0<x<2) (claim 1 of ‘725).
Regarding claim 4, ‘725 teaches wherein the first carbon-based active material and the second carbon-based active material are, independently, at least one selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, graphitized carbon fibers, graphitized mesocarbon microbeads, and amorphous carbon (claims 8 and 9 of ‘725)
Regarding claim 8, ‘725 teaches wherein at least one of silicon-based active materials of the second anode mixture layer has a carbon coating layer disposed on an outermost portion (claim 10 of ‘725).
Regarding claim 9, ‘725 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: the anode according to claim 1; and a cathode disposed to face the anode (claim 16 of ‘725).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights