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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 21, 2023, March 17, 2025, July 1, 2025, and May 18, 2026 are 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
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatachalam et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20190207209 A1, hereinafter referred to as Venkatachalam, in view of Ueda (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20120009452 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., Abstract). Venkatachalam teaches the negative electrode comprises an active material of a silicon oxide-based material (“a silicon-based active material”) and graphite (“a carbon-based material”), a nanoscale conductive carbon (“a conductive material”), and a binder (“a binder”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the active material blend comprises at least 10 weight percent of distinct graphite (“wherein the carbon-based material is included in an amount of 15 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., paragraph [0069]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the weight percent of graphite overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Venkatachalam does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon-based material has a charge capacity of 400 mAh/g or higher, a discharge capacity of 350 mAh/g or higher, and a charge/discharge efficiency of 90% or less.
However, Ueda teaches a negative electrode comprising graphite as a negative-electrode active material (see e.g., Abstract). Ueda teaches the graphite negative electrode shows a charge capacity of 320 mAh/g or more and 400 mAh/g or less (“a charge capacity of 400 mAh/g or higher”) (see e.g., paragraph [0051]). Ueda teaches the negative-electrode active material comprising graphite and amorphous carbon has a charge capacity of 450 mAh/g, a discharge capacity of 350 mAh/g (“a discharge capacity of 350 mAh/g or higher”), and an initial charge/discharge efficiency of 85% (“a charge/discharge efficiency of 90% or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0058]). Ueda teaches the graphite material as a principal component has a low operating voltage, shows a flat change in voltage, and thereby helps the resulting lithium ion secondary battery to have a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would have the graphite of Venkatachalam to have a charge capacity of 400 mAh/g, as taught by Ueda, in order to have a low operating voltage, show a flat change in voltage, and thereby help the resulting lithium ion secondary battery to have a higher energy density (see e.g., paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the negative electrode comprises an active material of graphite (“wherein the carbon-based material comprises a graphite”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
When Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the graphite of claim 1, then inherently it would have a content of a functional group, which becomes a volatile matter when heated of the graphite is 1.0% or more. In addition, the presently claimed property of the function group becoming a volatile matter when heated of 1.0% or more would have obviously been present once the graphite product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1997).
Regarding claim 4, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the graphite carbon has D50 from about 5 microns to about 50 microns (“wherein a median particle diameter (D50) of the carbon-based material is 10 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0074]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because median particle diameter D50 overlaps with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 5, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the silicon oxide-based material comprises oxygen deficient silicon oxide, e.g., silicon oxide and SiOx wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.9 (“wherein the silicon-based active material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of SiOx (0 < x < 2)”) (see e.g., paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 6, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the silicon oxide-based material comprises oxygen deficient silicon oxide, e.g., silicon oxide and SiOx wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.9 (“wherein the silicon-based active material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of SiOx (0 < x < 2), comprises Si in an amount of 70 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 7, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the active material of the negative electrode comprises at least about 40 wt% to about 95% wt% of the silicon based active material (“wherein the silicon-based active material is included in an amount of 60 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode composition”) (see e.g., paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the suitable nanoscale conductive carbon includes, for example, carbon black, carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers (“wherein the negative electrode conductive material comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a particulate conductive material, a planar conductive material and a linear conductive material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 9, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 1 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches the current collector of the negative electrode has a thickness from about 2 microns to about 20 microns (“wherein a thickness of the current collector layer is 1 µm or greater and 100 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]). Venkatachalam teaches the thickness of the active material on the current collector is at least 20 microns to about 75 microns (“wherein a thickness of the active material layer is 20 µm or greater and 500 µm or less”) (see e.g., paragraph [0086]).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the thicknesses overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 11, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 9, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a lithium ion battery (“a lithium secondary battery”) comprising a positive electrode (“a positive electrode”), a negative electrode (“the negative electrode of claim 9”), a separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (“a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”), and electrolyte (“an electrolyte”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 2, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 2 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 3, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 3 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 4, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 4 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 5, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 5 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 16, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 6, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 6 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 17, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 7, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 7 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 8, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a negative electrode (“a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]). Venkatachalam teaches the electrode comprises a current collector (“a current collector layer”) with the negative electrode material of cast onto the current collector (“an active material layer comprising the negative electrode composition of claim 8 formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector layer”) (see e.g., paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 19, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 3, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a lithium ion battery (“a lithium secondary battery”) comprising a positive electrode (“a positive electrode”), a negative electrode (“the negative electrode of claim 13”), a separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (“a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”), and electrolyte (“an electrolyte”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, Venkatachalam, as modified by Ueda, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 17, as previously described.
Venkatachalam teaches a lithium ion battery (“a lithium secondary battery”) comprising a positive electrode (“a positive electrode”), a negative electrode (“the negative electrode of claim 17”), a separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (“a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode”), and electrolyte (“an electrolyte”) (see e.g., paragraph [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 20160233485 A1) teaches a lithium ion secondary cell comprises a negative electrode mixture layer containing 5 to 45% by mass of at least one negative electrode active material selected from the group consisting of hard carbon, soft carbon, Sn, Sn alloys, Si, Si alloys, SiOx (0<x<2), Ge, Ge alloys, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers, wherein (Initial charge capacity per unit mass of the negative electrode mixture layer)/(Initial discharge capacity per unit mass of the negative electrode mixture layer)≧1.3 (see e.g., Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights