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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “d) optionally, repeating steps a and/or b” and “optionally through the composite material”. Optional limitations are understood to be limitations which are not required limitations.
Claim 16 recites “an electrode tab comprising a weld material” in line 2 and as best understood the electrode tab comprises the weld material only at the location of a weld.
Claim 16 recites “composite material comprising the weld material” in line 4 and then recites “the weld material and the composite material, preferably silicon, form a second weld interface material”. As best understood, the composite material comprises a silicon active material layer and current collector material and the weld material is only present at the location of the weld.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “116” has been used to designate both welds (e.g., page 25, line 23), an electrode assembly stack (page 25, line 15) and a current collector (page 32, line 24). The character “116” is used throughout the specification to designate welds and it appears that the designation of an electrode assembly and current collector are erroneous.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “122” and “123” (Fig. 12A).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 10, line 18 recites “tin, tin” and one instance of “tin” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites listed metals multiple times (e.g., tin).
Claim 21 recites “the first interface weld material” in lines 1-2 which should be changed to “the first weld interface material” for consistency with claim 16.
Claim 23 recites “the assembly” and this should be changed to “the electrode assembly”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the electrode tab” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously recited electrode tab material. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is presumed to be in reference to the electrode tab material.
Claim 1 recites “the composite material” in line 5 which lacks explicit antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “a first composite electrode material” in line 3 which is assumed to be “the composite material” and it is recommended to change this (line 3) to “a
Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the materials” in line 1 which lacks explicit antecedent basis and as such it is unclear if “the materials” include all of the aforementioned materials, a portion of them or other materials. Claim 5 also recites “the materials” in line 3.
Claim 5 recites “the welding process” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “preferably copper” in lines 3-4 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claim 8 recites “preferably, wherein the current collector comprises a copper or nickel core layer” in line 4, “more preferably a core layer” in lines 4-5, and “more preferably 1-2 nm” in line 6 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claim 9 recites “more preferably of from 5% to 50%” in line 2 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claim 10 recites “or an alloy comprising nickel, copper, tin, silicon, copper and nickel, copper and tin or copper and silicon” and as written it is unclear how many alloys are listed. This could be changed to “or an alloy comprising nickel, copper, tin, and silicon, an alloy comprising copper and nickel, an alloy comprising copper and tin or an alloy comprising copper and silicon” or similar.
Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1 and claim 10.
Claim 12 recites “the first weld interface material” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “preferably the tab material…..” in line 3 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claim 12 recites “the second weld interface material” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “preferably silicon” and “preferably the tab material…..” in line 6 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claims 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “the silicon of the composite” in line 3 which lacks explicit antecedent basis. This could be changed to “the silicon layer of the composite material”
Claim 16 recites “the tab material” in line 3 which lacks explicit antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 16 later recites tab material in line 9.
Claim 16 recites “the composite” in line 8 which lacks antecedent basis. As best understood, the composite is the composite material.
Claim 16 recites “preferably wherein at least part of the weld material” in line 5, “preferably silicon” in line 6, and “preferably the silicon” in line 8 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claims 17-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
Claim 20 recites “or an alloy comprising nickel, copper, tin, silicon, copper and tin or copper and silicon” and as written it is unclear how many alloys are listed. This could be changed similar to claim 10 above.
Claim 20 recites “the welding material” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “the weld interface material” in lines 3-4 and it’s unclear which weld interface material this is referring to because claim 20 is dependent on claim 16 and claim 16 recites first and second weld interface materials.
Claim 21 recites “preferably the tab material” in line 3 and “preferably silicon” in line 3 and again in line 5 and again in line 6 and “preferably the tab material” in line 5 and the use of the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are required or not. See MPEP §2173.05(d). As best understood, preferable limitations are optional.
Claim 21 recites “the welding material” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. (US 20200373584) in view of Tiwari (US 9979009) and Kim et al. (US 20230402616).
Regarding claim 1, Morin et al. discloses a method for producing an electrode assembly (anode or cathode, para. [0050], with current collector, para. [0039]), the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing at least a first composite electrode material comprising at least one silicon layer on a current collector material (anodes and cathodes comprise a current collector with an anode and cathode material coating/layer, para. [0006], where an anode material may be silicon, pars. [0053] and [0061]).
Morin et al. discloses: b) providing a welding material in contact with the composite material at least in that the material which is present on the surfaces of the current collector and tab in contact with each other, will form the welds (para. [0040]) and thus comprises welding material. The composite material comprises the silicon layer and current collector material and it is deemed that the welding material is in contact with the composite material if the welding material is in contact with the silicon layer, the current collector material or both.
Otherwise, Morin et al. discloses the welding material may comprise inserted additional metal layers (para. [0046]) and Tiwari teaches welding tabs to electrodes (Abstract) and teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4).
Likewise, Kim et al. teaches joining a tab material (tab 190) to the conductive material layer (layers 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) using welding material (metal piece 120, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Abstract) where the tab material (tab 190) is welded to the welding material (metal piece 120) and the conductive material (material 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) by ultrasonic welding (pars. [0073] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the method includes: b) providing a welding material in contact with the composite material (the silicon layer, current collector material or both).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a welding material in contact with the composite material in order to improve tensile strength of the weld (Kim et al., pars. [0008] and [0026]) or to facilitate forming welds with the composite material.
The combined teaching of Morin et al. in view of Tiwari further discloses: c) providing an electrode tab material in contact with the welding material (Morin et al., para. [0066], Tiwari, tab 404 in contact with layer 408, Fig. 4) to form an aligned electrode assembly stack (Morin et al., stack comprising tab 610 and the current collector 600, Fig. 13, Tiwari tab 404, welding material/layer 408 and silicon, Fig. 4).
Morin et al. further discloses: d) optionally, repeating steps a and/or b (Morin et al., multiple tabs may be welded, Fig. 22 or otherwise the limitation is optional); and e) applying ultrasonic energy to a portion of the aligned electrode assembly stack (para. [0066]) to form: i) a weld material (forming divots, para. [0066]).
The combined teaching of Morin et al. in view of Tiwari further discloses ii) a penetration weld (Morin et al., a divot penetrates through layers, para. [0043]) through the electrode tab and the welding material (Tiwari, layer 108) and optionally through the composite material (Morin et al., the divot may penetrate through multiple layers or otherwise the limitation is optional); and/or iii) at least an attachment weld between the weld material and the composite material (Morin et al., the divot and current collector, pars. [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 disclose at least part of the weld material (Tiwari et al., layer 408, Kim et al., metal piece 120) and tab material (Morin et al., such as tab 610, Fig. 13, Tiwari et al., tab 404, Kim et al., tab 190) form a first weld interface material (Morin et al., an interface material where at least the weld material and tab material are in contact due to the formation of divots, pars. [0043]-[0044], Kim et al., para. [0083]) and at least part of the weld material and the composite material form a second weld interface material (Morin et al., via divots penetrating layers, para. [0043], Kim et al., not explicitly stated, but the weld must penetrate the layers, including an insulating layer 130 which insulates except at the weld, para. [0089], to establish electrical connection, para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Morin et al. does not expressly disclose the welding material is brought in contact with the at least one silicon layer of the composite material.
However, Tiwari teaches welding tabs to electrodes (Abstract) and teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein welding material is brought in contact with the at least one silicon layer of the composite material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to contact the welding material with a silicon layer in order to facilitate welding the tab to the silicon layer and thereby achieve an electrical connection between the silicon layer and the tab material.
Regarding claim 5, Morin et al. discloses wherein the materials are essentially flat, sheet-like materials, and wherein the materials are aligned and fixed prior to, and during the welding process (as indicated in Fig. 13, para. [0046], fixed such as by pressing the anvil, para. [0048]). Likewise, Kim et al. discloses the materials are essentially flat, sheet-like materials (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Morin et al. does not expressly disclose what welding material (additional metal layers inserted between current collectors, para. [0046]) is used, but Tiwari further teaches welding material (layer 408) may be copper or nickel (col. 7, line 20) and Kim et al. further teaches welding material (metal piece 120) may be aluminum (para. [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the welding material comprises aluminium, gold, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, palladium, platinum, thulium, titanium, tungsten, silver, beryllium, magnesium, nickel, silicon and/or zirconium, preferably copper.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select materials which allow for electrical connection between various components and layers as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 8, Morin et al. discloses wherein the current collector material comprises a metal, metal alloy and/or metal salts and/or oxide, wherein the metal, metal alloy and/or metal salts and/or oxide are selected from aluminium, copper, nickel, tin, tin, indium and zinc (coated layer of conductive copper or aluminum, para. [0021]); preferably, wherein the current collector comprises a copper or nickel core layer, more preferably a core layer doped with oxides or fluorides of zinc, aluminium, tin or indium, at a thickness of from 0.1 to 5 nm, more preferably 1 to 2 nm (Morin et al. at least discloses the required limitation of copper, para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Morin et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose a nickel or copper tab.
However, the use of copper tabs is known (Morin et al., para. [0145]) and Kim et al. teaches the tab comprises copper (para. [0125]) and Tiwari teaches the tab may be a copper tab (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the tab material comprises nickel or copper or an alloy comprising nickel, copper, tin, silicon, copper and nickel, copper and tin or copper and silicon (copper, Morin et al., para. [0145], Kim et al., para. [0125], Tiwari, Fig. 4).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select materials for the tab which allow for electrical connection between other components and layers as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., supra and In re Leshin, supra.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of the above cited references for claim 10 disclose
the tab is copper (Morin et al., para. [0145], Kim et al., para. [0125], Tiwari, Fig. 4) and insomuch as Morin et al. does not disclose what the welding material is, Tiwari further teaches welding material (layer 408) may be copper or nickel (col. 7, line 20) and Kim et al. further teaches welding material (metal piece 120) may be aluminum (para. [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein if the tab material comprises nickel, the welding material is selected from materials comprising aluminium, gold, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, palladium, platinum, thulium, titanium, tungsten or combinations thereof; and if the tab material comprises copper but not nickel, the welding material is selected from materials comprising silver, aluminium, gold, beryllium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, palladium, platinum, silicon, thulium, titanium, tungsten, zirconium or combinations thereof such as where the tab is copper (Morin et al., para. [0145], Kim et al., para. [0125], Tiwari, Fig. 4) and the welding material is aluminum (Kim et al., para. [0081]) or copper (Tiwari, col. 7, line 20).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select materials which allow for electrical connection between various components and layers as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., supra and In re Leshin, supra.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 disclose
wherein the first weld interface material comprises the tab material and the welding material or an alloy thereof (in that the first weld interface is the interface between the tab [Morin et al., such as tab 610, Fig. 13, Tiwari, tab 404, Kim et al., tab 190] and the welding material [Tiwari, layer 408, Fig. 4, Kim et al., metal piece 120]), preferably the tab material and the welding material and the composite material or an alloy thereof (this optional limitation is not explicitly disclosed, but would be expected to be present in the ultrasonic weld divot between the layers, Morin et al., para. [0043]); and wherein the second weld interface material comprises the welding material and the composite material (as the welding material is located between the tab and composite material and the second weld interface material would comprise the welding material [Kim et al., metal piece 120] and at least metal material of the current collector/composite material because the weld connects the current collector to the tab via the welding material [Kim et al., electrically connected, para. [0083]]), preferably silicon (this optional limitation is not expressly disclosed in the references), or an alloy thereof, preferably the tab material and the welding material and the composite material or an alloy thereof (this optional limitation is not explicitly disclosed, but would be expected to be present in the ultrasonic weld divot between the layers, Morin et al., para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Morin et al. discloses wherein the current collector material comprises copper, tin, chromium, nickel, titanium, stainless steel or silver, or an alloy comprising copper, tin, chromium, nickel, titanium, stainless steel or silver (coated layer of conductive copper or aluminum, para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 discloses a battery comprising an electrolyte, a cathode, a separator (Morin et al., para. [0015]) and the assembly obtainable according to the method according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. (US 20200373584) in view of Tiwari (US 9979009) and Kim et al. (US 20230402616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kogetsu et al. (attached translation of WO 2013080459A1).
Regarding claim 4, insomuch as Morin et al. does not disclose the composite material comprises at least one layer of silicon on each of two sides of the current collector material; Kogetsu et al. discloses an electrode (Abstract) where a lead (lead 113) is attached to a current collector (collector 110) and Kogetsu et al. teaches wherein the composite material comprises at least one layer of silicon (silicon based active material layer 111, para. [0010]) on each of two sides of the current collector material (material 110, Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the composite material comprises at least one layer of silicon on each of two sides of the current collector material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a silicon layer on both sides to allow for reversible lithium alloying on both sides (Kogetsu et al., para. [0026]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. (US 20200373584) in view of Tiwari (US 9979009) and Kim et al. (US 20230402616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20220013784) hereinafter “Kim II” or Yakovleva et al. (US 20210273220).
Regarding claim 9, Morin et al. is silent as to a porosity of the silicon layer.
However, Kim II teaches a negative electrode (Abstract) comprising a silicon active material (para. [0062]) and further teaches a porosity range which at least reasonably overlaps with the claimed 0-50% or the optional 5-50% (para. [0062], while the measurement method differs it would not reasonably be expected to differ so substantially as to be completely out of the claimed range), as determined according to the method specified by the ISO standard: ISO 15901-2:2006 “Pore size distribution and porosity of solid materials by mercury porosimetry and gas adsorption—Part 2: Analysis of mesopores and macropores by gas adsorption” using nitrogen gas.
Likewise, Yakovleva et al. discloses an electrode (Abstract) comprising a silicon active material (para. [0038]) and further teaches a porosity range which at least reasonably overlaps with the claimed 0-50% or the optional 5-50% (para. [0038]), as determined according to the method specified by the ISO standard: ISO 15901-2:2006 “Pore size distribution and porosity of solid materials by mercury porosimetry and gas adsorption—Part 2: Analysis of mesopores and macropores by gas adsorption” using nitrogen gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the at least one silicon layer has a porosity of from 0% to 50%, more preferably of from 5% to 50%, as determined according to the method specified by the ISO standard: ISO 15901-2:2006 “Pore size distribution and porosity of solid materials by mercury porosimetry and gas adsorption—Part 2: Analysis of mesopores and macropores by gas adsorption” using nitrogen gas.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a range which allows for improved battery performance or to allow for an appropriate contact level of active material while allowing for volume changes (Kim II, para. [0062]) and the range disclosed in the prior art at least reasonably overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the porosity range is not disclosed by Kim II or Yakovleva et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the porosity range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the silicon layer porosity within the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. (US 20200373584) in view of Tiwari (US 9979009) and Kim et al. (US 20230402616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210119305) and Lee et al. (US 20140087245) hereinafter “Lee II”.
Regarding claim 14, Morin et al. is silent as to a quantified extent of penetration, but Morin et al. discloses that the weld divot passes through layers (para. [0043]) and Lee teaches welding a plurality of electrode tabs (tabs 110, Fig. 2) together using ultrasonic welding (pars. [0002] and [0050]) and Lee II also teaches ultrasonic welding (para. [0065]) for a plurality of electrode tabs (para. [0009]) comprising copper or aluminum (para. [0014]) which shows that ultrasonic welding may pass through the entire extent of multiple metal layers being welded together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the weld material extends into or penetrates the composite material throughout at least 0.1 to 1% of a dimension of the composite material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a penetration extent to achieve a desired level of weld strength between the tab and current collector.
Assuming, arguendo, that the weld extent is not disclosed by Morin et al. in view of Lee or Lee II, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the weld extent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the weld at or exceeding the recited range in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. (US 20200373584) in view of Tiwari (US 9979009).
Regarding claim 16, Morin et al. discloses an electrode assembly (anode or cathode, para. [0050], with current collector, para. [0039]) comprising: i) an electrode tab (such as tab 610, Fig. 13) comprising a weld material (such as weld 612, para. [0154]), wherein at least part of the weld material and the tab material form a first weld interface material (weld 612 connects the tab 610 to the current collector 600 at an interface between the tab and the current collector where the weld material is formed as a divot, para. [0043]); ii) a silicon electrode composite material (anodes and cathodes comprise a current collector, such as a metallized film, para. [0062] or a metallized substrate current collector, para. [0067], with an anode and cathode material coating/layer, para. [0006], where an anode material may be silicon, pars. [0053] and [0061]) comprising the weld material (a weld divot) and a silicon active material layer (may be silicon, para. [0061]) on a current collector material layer (metallized film or substrate), preferably wherein at least part of the weld material and the composite material, preferably silicon, form a second weld interface material (such as at the interface between weld 612 and current collector 600, Fig. 13, but Morin et al. does not expressly disclose the optional limitation of the weld material and silicon forming a second weld interface); and
iii) the weld material adjoining the electrode tab and the composite (such as the weld material 612 adjoining the current collector 600 and tab 610, Fig. 13), preferably the silicon material (Morin et al. does not expressly disclose the optional limitation of the weld material adjoining the silicon material) such that tab, composite and weld material are joined in electrical communication with each other (Fig. 13).
Insomuch as Morin et al. does not disclose that the weld material adjoins the electrode tab and the silicon of the composite (optional limitation); Tiwari teaches an electrode tab (tab 404) is welded to a silicon material and Tiwari teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4) such that a weld material would comprise the welding material and would adjoin the electrode tab (tab 404) and the silicon (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the weld material includes a welding material and the weld material adjoins the electrode tab and the silicon of the composite via the welding material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a welding material where the weld material would comprise the welding material in order to facilitate forming welds with the composite material.
Regarding claim 17, Morin et al. discloses wherein the weld material is an ultrasonic weld material (ultrasonic weld divot, para. [0066]).
Claim 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. (US 20200373584) in view of Tiwari (US 9979009) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20230402616).
Regarding claim 18, Morin et al. discloses the welding material may comprise inserted additional metal layers (para. [0046]) or otherwise Tiwari teaches welding tabs to electrodes (Abstract) and teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4).
Likewise, Kim et al. teaches joining a tab material (tab 190) to the conductive material layer (layers 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) using welding material (metal piece 120, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Abstract) where the tab material (tab 190) is welded to the welding material (metal piece 120) and the conductive material (material 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) by ultrasonic welding (pars. [0073] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the electrode assembly comprises a welding material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a welding material in contact with the composite material in order to improve tensile strength of the weld (Kim et al., pars. [0008] and [0026]) or to facilitate forming welds with the composite material.
Regarding claim 20, Morin et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose a nickel or copper tab.
However, the use of copper tabs is known (Morin et al., para. [0145]) and Kim et al. teaches joining a tab material (tab 190) to the conductive material layer (layers 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) and teaches the tab comprises copper (para. [0125]) and Tiwari teaches the tab may be a copper tab (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the tab material comprises nickel or copper or an alloy comprising nickel, copper, tin, silicon, copper and tin or copper and silicon (copper, Morin et al., para. [0145], Kim et al., para. [0125], Tiwari, Fig. 4).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select materials for the tab which allow for electrical connection between other components and layers as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., supra and In re Leshin, supra.
Morin et al. discloses a welding material (inserted additional metal layers, para. [0046]) or otherwise Tiwari teaches welding tabs to electrodes (Abstract) and teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4).
Likewise, Kim et al. teaches joining a tab material (tab 190) to the conductive material layer (layers 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) using welding material (metal piece 120, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Abstract) where the tab material (tab 190) is welded to the welding material (metal piece 120) and the conductive material (material 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) by ultrasonic welding (pars. [0073] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the electrode assembly comprises a welding material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a welding material in contact with the composite material in order to improve tensile strength of the weld (Kim et al., pars. [0008] and [0026]) or to facilitate forming welds with the composite material.
Morin et al. does not expressly disclose what welding material (additional metal layers inserted between current collectors, para. [0046]) is used, but Tiwari further teaches welding material (layer 408) may be copper or nickel (col. 7, line 20) and Kim et al. further teaches welding material (metal piece 120) may be aluminum (para. [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the weld material, the welding material or the weld interface material (at least the weld material) comprises aluminium, gold, copper, iron, lithium, manganese, palladium, platinum, thulium, titanium, tungsten, silver, beryllium, magnesium, nickel, silicon or zirconium (aluminum, Kim et al., para. [0081] or copper, Tiwari, col. 7, line 20).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select materials which allow for electrical connection between various components and layers as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., supra and In re Leshin, supra.
Regarding claim 21, the above-cited references for claim 16 disclose wherein the first interface weld material comprises the tab material and the weld material (Morin et al., such as shown in Fig. 13, the first interface comprises weld material 612 and the tab 610) or an alloy thereof, preferably the tab material, the weld material and the composite material (this optional limitation is not explicitly disclosed, but would be expected to be present in the ultrasonic weld divot between the layers, Morin et al., para. [0043]), preferably silicon (this optional limitation is not expressly disclosed), or an alloy thereof.
Morin et al. discloses a welding material (inserted additional metal layers, para. [0046]) or otherwise Tiwari teaches welding tabs to electrodes (Abstract) and teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4).
Likewise, Kim et al. teaches joining a tab material (tab 190) to the conductive material layer (layers 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) using welding material (metal piece 120, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Abstract) where the tab material (tab 190) is welded to the welding material (metal piece 120) and the conductive material (material 102) or the current collector material (base film 101) by ultrasonic welding (pars. [0073] and [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Morin et al. wherein the electrode assembly comprises a welding material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a welding material to improve tensile strength of the weld (Kim et al., pars. [0008] and [0026]) or to facilitate forming welds with the composite material.
The combined teaching of the above-cited references discloses wherein the second weld interface material comprises the weld material or the welding material and the composite material (Morin et al., such as shown in Fig. 13, the weld material and collector 600/composite material would be in contact at a second weld interface and when using welding material the welding material would be in contact with the current collector/composite material at a second weld interface to achieve electrical connection, Kim et al., para. [0083]), preferably silicon (this optional limitation is not expressly disclosed), or an alloy thereof, preferably the tab material, the weld material or the welding material, and the composite material (this optional limitation is not explicitly disclosed, but would be expected to be present in the ultrasonic weld divot between the layers, Morin et al., para. [0043]), preferably silicon (this optional limitation is not expressly disclosed), or an alloy thereof.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-13 and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 3-4, 7-9, 13, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/559148 hereinafter “ ‘148” in view of Kim et al. (US 20230402616).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-13 and 23, the claims of ‘148 meet the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-13 and 23 except that ‘148 does not claim providing a welding material in contact with the current collector. However, Kim et al. teaches a welding material (metal piece 120) in contact with the current collector (para. [0014], the current collector comprises the base film 101 and conductive material 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention by providing a welding material in contact with the current collector.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 3 and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/559148 hereinafter “ ‘148” in view of Kim et al. (US 20230402616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Tiwari (US 9979009).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, ‘148 does not claim wherein the welding material is brought in contact with the at least one silicon layer of the composite material. However, Tiwari teaches that a welding material (an additional layer/ thin film of material such as copper, col. 7, lines 19-20) is provided between the tab and the silicon (layer 408, Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention by bringing the welding material in contact with the at least one silicon layer of the composite material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/559148 hereinafter “ ‘148” in view of Kim et al. (US 20230402616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20220013784) hereinafter “Kim II” or Yakovleva et al. (US 20210273220).
Regarding claim 9, ‘148 does not claim a porosity of the silicon layer.
However, Kim II teaches a negative electrode (Abstract) comprising a silicon active material (para. [0062]) and further teaches a porosity range which at least reasonably overlaps with the claimed 0-50% or the optional 5-50% (para. [0062]) and Yakovleva et al. discloses an electrode (Abstract) comprising a silicon active material (para. [0038]) and further teaches a porosity range which at least reasonably overlaps with the claimed 0-50% or the optional 5-50% (para. [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention by using a silicon layer with a porosity of 0-50%, as determined according to the method specified by the ISO standard: ISO 15901-2:2006 “Pore size distribution and porosity of solid materials by mercury porosimetry and gas adsorption—Part 2: Analysis of mesopores and macropores by gas adsorption” using nitrogen gas.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/559148 hereinafter “ ‘148” in view of Kim et al. (US 20230402616) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210119305) and Lee et al. (US 20140087245A1) hereinafter “Lee II”.
Regarding claim 14, ‘148 does not claim a weld penetration extent. However, Lee teaches welding a plurality of electrode tabs (tabs 110, Fig. 2) together using ultrasonic welding (pars. [0002] and [0050]) and Lee II also teaches ultrasonic welding (para. [0065]) for a plurality of electrode tabs (para. [0009]) comprising copper or aluminum (para. [0014]) which shows that ultrasonic welding may pass through the entire extent of multiple metal layers being welded together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the claimed invention wherein the weld material extends into or penetrates the composite material throughout at least 0.1 to 1% of a dimension of the composite material.
Claims 16-18 and 20-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-14 of copending Application No. 18/559148 hereinafter “ ‘148”.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 16-18 and 20-21 are met by claims 11-14 of ‘148.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable upon resolution of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 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 prior art of record discloses methods of producing an electrode assembly comprising the steps of providing at least a first composite electrode material comprising at least one silicon layer on a current collector material; providing a welding material in contact with the composite material; providing an electrode tab material in contact with the welding material, to form an aligned electrode assembly stack and applying ultrasonic energy to a portion of the aligned electrode assembly stack to weld the materials together.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method of producing an electrode assembly comprising the steps of providing at least a first composite electrode material comprising at least one silicon layer on a current collector material; providing a welding material in contact with the composite material; providing an electrode tab material in contact with the welding material, to form an aligned electrode assembly stack and applying ultrasonic energy to a portion of the aligned electrode assembly stack to weld the materials together and which further includes connecting two or more electrode assemblies by contacting the silicon layer of the composite material of a first electrode assembly with either: a welding layer or a current collector of a second electrode assembly or a welding layer contacted with a second electrode assembly and contacting the welding layer or the current collector with an electrode tab and applying ultrasound energy to weld at least two electrode assemblies together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights