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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 29, 2023 and March 4, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0310991, hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, 13, 17, and 19, Lee teaches a secondary battery (instant claim 13) for eco-friendly vehicles such as a hybrid automobile (instant claim 19). This secondary battery comprises an anode (instant claim 1) that includes a first anode active material layer (Fig 1: 122) (reads on substrate layer B) and a second anode active material layer (Fig 1: 124) (reads on surface layer A) that are stacked on a surface of an anode current collector [0012]. The Raman R value may be defined as a ratio ID/IG where the IG is an intensity at a shift of 1300-1420cm-1 and ID is an intensity at a shift of 1540-1620cm-1 [0053]. This represents an overlap in ranges claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The Raman R value of the first anode active material layer 122 (B) may be greater than 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.8 [0060]. This represents an overlap in ranges claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The Raman R value of the second anode active (A) material layer is smaller than the Raman R value of the first anode active material layer (B) (reads on instant’s A/B<1) [0051]. Because A is smaller than B according; A is less than 1.8 and also overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) (instant claims 1, 2, 3).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach that the Raman R value of the second anode active material layer (reads on instants surface layer) being between 0.55 and 0.78.
Lee teaches that the second anode active material layer 124 (A) Raman R value is kept smaller than the Raman R value of the first anode active material layer 122 (B) in order to implement rapid charging properties for a long period of time at a high temperature [0056]. Therefore, the Raman R value of the second anode active material layer is considered a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the Raman R value of the second anode active material layer in order to maintain rapid charging properties, as taught by Lee. In optimizing this Raman R value of A, one would arrive at the claimed range, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lee teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1. Additionally, Lee teaches that the negative electrode active substance comprises of a carbon-silicon composite [0043].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0310991, hereinafter Lee, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0349180, hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lee teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, as mentioned above.
However, Lee fails to teach a Dv50 of the negative electrode active substance particles ranging from 5 µm to 15 µm.
Kim teaches a negative active material for a negative electrode of a rechargeable lithium battery including a silicon-based material and graphite, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the graphite may range from about 5 µm to about 15 µm (Abstract). This represents an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the particle size of Kim in the negative active material of Lee in order to decrease the volume expansion ratio [0043].
Claims 4-5, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1, 13, and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0009475, hereinafter Nakura.
Regarding claims 4-5, 14-15, and 20, Lee teaches a secondary battery (instant claim 13) for eco-friendly vehicles such as a hybrid automobile. This secondary battery comprises an anode that includes a first anode active material layer (Fig 1: 122) (reads on substrate layer) and a second anode active material layer (Fig 1: 124) (reads on surface layer) that are stacked on a surface of an anode current collector [0012]. The Raman R value may be defined as a ratio ID/IG where the IG is an intensity at a shift of 1300-1420cm-1 and ID is an intensity at a shift of 1540-1620cm-1 [0053]. The Raman R value of the first anode active material layer 122 may be greater than 0.1 and less than or equal to 1.8 [0060]. The Raman R value of the second anode active material layer is smaller than the Raman R value of the first anode active material layer (reads on instant’s A/B<1) [0051].
However, Lee fails to teach the thickness of the surface layer being 5 µm to 20 µm (instant claims 4, 14, and 20) and the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer being 30 µm to 160 µm (instant claims 5 and 15).
Nakura teaches an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery that includes a sheet-like current collector and an active material layer. The active material layer includes a first layer and a second layer (Abstract) with a total thickness of 45 to 100 µm [0040]. The ratio of the thickness T1 of the first layer to the thickness T2 of the second layer (T1/T2) needs to be from 0.33 to 75 [0039]. This represents an overlap in ranges taught for the instant’s surface layer thickness and the instant’s negative electrode active material layer thickness. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the surface layer and negative electrode active material layer thicknesses of Nakura in the negative electrode plate of Lee in order to improve the energy density and the input/output characteristics of the electrode, as taught by Nakura [0039].
Claims 8-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Kim as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2002/0086206, hereinafter Fauteux.
Regarding claims 8-12 and 18, Lee and Kim teach an anode for a secondary battery that is used for electric vehicle The anode includes a current collector, a first anode mixture layer (reads on substrate layer), and a second anode mixture layer (reads on surface layer). Raman R = ID/IG is represented by equation 2 where ID may represent a peak intensity value in an absorption region of 1350 to 1380 cm-1 and IG may represent a peak intensity value in an absorption region of 1580 to 1600 cm-1 [0056]. The R value of the second anode mixture layer falls within the range of 0.55 to 0.78 and the R value of the first anode mixture layer falls within the range of 0.78 to 0.96.
However, Lee and Kim fail to teach a primer layer between the negative current collector and the substrate layer and the specifics thereof.
Fauteux teaches an electrochemical cell the contains a first electrode, a second electrode, and an electrolyte, and a passivation layer or solid electrolyte interface layer [0037]. The first electrode comprises a current collecting substrate and an active material layer [0038]. A primer layer comprising a conductive material, a binder, and a solvent is provided between the collector substrate and the active material layer in order to improve adhesion [0068] (instant claim 8, 11, 12, and 18). The conductive material within the primer layer can be carbon black or graphite [0069] (instant claim 9). The primer layer thickness is preferably between 0.1 µm and 10 µm [0069] (instant claim 10). This represents an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). When the primer layer thickness is less than 0.05 µm, it becomes difficult to secure uniformity of the primer layer. When the layer thickness exceeds 20 µm, the capacity rate characteristics of the battery tends to deteriorate [0069]. Therefore, the thickness of the primer layer is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use the primer layer of Fauteux in the negative electrode of Lee and Kim in order to improve adhesion of the active material layer to the collector substrate [0068]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to optimize the thickness of the primer layer in order to secure uniformity and maintain capacity rate characteristics [0069], as taught by Fauteux. In optimizing the thickness of the primer layer, one would arrive at the claimed relationship, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights