DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chiba (WO2021131124A1, See US2023045995A1 for citations).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1-2 & 5: Chiba discloses a method for manufacturing a doped electrode including an active material layer doped with an alkali metal ([0016]), the method comprising: conveying a strip-shaped electrode (Fig. 1, Element 1 & [0018]) including the active material layer ([0018]) along a path that passes through a doping tank (Fig. 1, Element 15, 17, & 19) storing a dope solution containing ions of the alkali metal ([0091]), an aprotic organic solvent ([0091]), and a counter electrode unit (Fig. 1, Element 137, 139, 141, & 143); and electrically connecting the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer via the dope solution in the doping tank ([0059]), wherein a content of dimethyl carbonate in the aprotic organic solvent is 70 vol% ([0155]), falling within 40 vol% or more and 95 vol% or less (claim 1) and 60 vol% or more and 85 vol% or less (claim 5).
Regarding claim 2: Chiba further discloses the method for manufacturing a doped electrode according set forth in the limitations of claim 1, wherein a content of cyclic carbonate in the aprotic organic solvent is 30 vol% (ethylene carbonate (EC), [0155]), falling within 5 vol% or more and 40 vol% or less.
Regarding claim 3: Chiba discloses the method for manufacturing a doped electrode according set forth in the limitations of claim 1, wherein the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer is drawn from a supply roll ([0048]), conveyed along the path ([0048]), and wound around a winding roll unit (Fig. 1, Element 103 & [0048]), and the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer are electrically connected via the dope solution in the doping tank ([0059]) while the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer is continuously conveyed (Displayed in Fig. 1, Element 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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chiba (WO2021131124A1, See US2023045995A1 for citations).
Regarding claim 6: Chiba discloses the method for manufacturing a doped electrode set forth in the limitations of claim 1. Chiba also discloses that in a case where lithium is occluded in the negative electrode active material of a lithium-ion rechargeable battery, the doping amount of the alkali metal is preferably 10 to 30% relative to the theoretical capacity of the negative electrode active material ([0137]). Chiba further discloses an example where a doped negative electrode has the doping amount of lithium to be 80% relative to the theoretical capacity of the negative electrode active material before drying ([0156]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would recognize that the dopant must be included in an amount sufficient to allow proper ion conductivity as a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that pre-doping/lithiation adds an extra reservoir/supply of Li+ into the electrode without detracting from the bulk active material and, thus, hampering capacity/energy density as well as hindering the functions of the other components in the active layer (e.g., conductive agent for sufficient conductivity, binder for sufficient adhesion to current collector and cohesion of active layer's ingredients, etc.), so then it would’ve been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of before the before effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the dopant's wt% in the active layer after drying to be a range of 5-40 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the active material layer balance those effects (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (WO2021131124A1, See US2023045995A1 for citations) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hideaki (US4994221A).
Regarding claim 4: Chiba discloses the method for manufacturing a doped electrode set forth in the limitations of claim 1, wherein the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer are electrically connected via the dope solution in the doping tank ([0059]).
Chiba further desires sufficient alkali-metal ion absorption in the electrode (see insertion/desorption, [0083]), though Chiba does not disclose the limitation, “a potential of the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer based on a reference lithium metal electrode is -10 V or more and 0 V or less, and the reference lithium metal electrode is installed in a portion other than a space where the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer face each other, the portion being within a distance of 7 mm from the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer.”
Hideaki discloses a similar method for producing a carbon electrode that is doped with lithium ions ([Spec., col. 6, lines 3-6]). Hideaki further discloses that the potential of the carbon electrode is repeatedly charged down to a potential of zero volts vs. the lithium reference electrode ([Spec., col. 6, lines 26-30]); and the reference lithium metal electrode (Fig. 2, Element 14), is installed in a portion other than a space where the counter electrode unit (Fig. 2, Element 13) and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer (Fig. 2, Element 11) face each other (Fig. 2).
Hideaki teaches that the carbon electrode is discharged up to 2.5 volts, the discharging capacity shows almost no decrease after more than 200 charge-discharge cycles ([Spec., col. 6, lines 30-32]), and the carbon electrode of the present embodiment efficiently absorbs charge carrier lithium ions ([Spec., col. 6, lines 23-25]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify, Chiba with the teaching of Hideaki to repeatedly charge down the carbon electrode to a potential of zero volts vs. the lithium reference electrode to allow the electrode to efficiently absorb carrier lithium ions.
While Hideaki doesn’t directly disclose the limitation, “the reference lithium metal electrode being within a distance of 7 mm from the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer.”, the dimensions of the carbon electrode is the length, width and thickness thereof being 25 mm, 15 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively ([Spec., col. 6, lines 30-32]). Due to the carbon electrode being small, the reference electrode and the counter electrode should be similar sizes.
Examiner notes that for optimization of the carbon electrode, the electrolytic cell or the doping tank, should be a size relative to the electrodes.
Chiba teaches the negative current collector to have the dimensions of 132 mm in width, and 8 μm in thickness ([0152]). The negative electrode active material layer was formed over a width of 120 mm from the end portion of the current collector ([0153]). This allows at least the widths to be similar in size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to infer, that Chiba with the teaching of Hideaki to allow the reference electrode to be within the distance of 7 mm of the carbon electrode and to be in a space other than the space where the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer do not face each other. Examiner notes that for optimization of the within the doping tank, some distance apart between the electrodes must be allowed to keep them separate, but a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand not to place them too far apart and risk wasting space and risking hindering the electrical connection between the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoi (US20190074143A1) with Sakai (JP2010080123A).
Regarding claim 1: Naoi discloses a method for manufacturing a doped electrode ([0014]) including an active material layer doped with an alkali metal ([0014]), the method comprising: conveying a strip-shaped electrode ([0014]) including the active material layer ([0014]) along a path that passes through a doping tank ([0014], Figure 1, Element 3 & 5) storing a dope solution containing ions of the alkali metal ([0014]), an aprotic organic solvent ([0014]), and a counter electrode unit ([0014], Figure 1, Element 51); and electrically connecting the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer via the dope solution in the doping tank ([0014]).
Naoi further recognizes that the solvent comprises dimethyl carbonate at 30 vol% ([0358]), yet, while not appearing strictly limited to this value to achieve the desired solution, Naoi fails to disclose the limitation, ”wherein a content of dimethyl carbonate in the aprotic organic solvent is being 40 vol% or more and 95 vol% or less.”.
Sakai teaches similar alkali metal doping [0051-0054] with an electrolyte solvent comprising EC:DMC at 1:1 volumetric ratio. Therefore, it would've been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-doping electrolyte solution of Naoi to include 50 vol% DMC solvent concentration as taught by Sakai. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would've been motivated to do so because Sakai demonstrates that utilizing DMC at 50 vol% is an effective baseline for optimizing ion mobility in negative electrodes. Since the exact ratio of cyclic to linear carbonates is a known result effective variable, arriving at a DMC content of 50 vol% would have been an obvious design choice and a matter of routine optimization to achieve the desired balance of ionic conductivity and table SEI formation in Naoi's doping system.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Naoi discloses method of claim 1. Naoi explicitly teaches an aprotic organic solvent comprising a cyclic carbonate, specifically ethylene carbonate, at an amount of 30 vol% [0358], which falls within the claimed range of 5 to 40 vol%. While Sakai exemplifies a 1:1 volume ratio of EC to DMC, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize the 50 vol% DMC taught by Sakai in combination with the 30 vol% cyclic carbonate explicitly taught by Naoi with the remainder comprising another linear carbonate such as EMC, as taught by Naoi. A person having ordinary skill would have recognized that the exact ratio of cyclic to linear carbonate is a result effective variable that is routinely optimized. Maintaining the cyclic carbonate content at 30 vol% while increasing the DMC content to 50 vol% as would have been an obvious design choice to balance ionic conductivity and stable SIE formation.
Regarding claim 3: Modified Naoi discloses the limitations set forth above in claim 1, wherein the strip-shaped electrode (Fig.9, Element 73) including the active material layer (Fig.9, Element 95) is drawn from a supply roll (Fig.1, Element 47; [0070]), conveyed along the path ([0070]), and wound around a winding roll (Fig.1, Element 49; [0070]), and the counter electrode unit (Fig.1, Element 51 and 52) and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer (Fig.1, Element 73) are electrically connected via the dope solution in the doping tank ([0014], Figure 1, Element 3 & 5) while the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer is continuously conveyed ([0063]).
Regarding claim 6: Naoi discloses the method for manufacturing a doped electrode set forth in the limitations of claim 1. Naoi also discloses that in a case d when lithium is occluded in the anode active material of the lithium ion secondary battery , the doping amount of the alkali metal is preferably 10 to 30 % with respect to the theoretical capacity of the anode active material ([0118]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would recognize that the dopant must be included in an amount sufficient to allow proper ion conductivity as a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that pre-doping/lithiation adds an extra reservoir/supply of Li+ into the electrode without detracting from the bulk active material and, thus, hampering capacity/energy density as well as hindering the functions of the other components in the active layer (e.g., conductive agent for sufficient conductivity, binder for sufficient adhesion to current collector and cohesion of active layer's ingredients, etc.), so then it would’ve been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of before the before effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the dopant's wt% in the active layer after drying to be a range of 5-40 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the active material layer balance those effects.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoi (US20190074143A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hideaki (US4994221A).
Regarding claim 4: Modified Naoi discloses the limitations set forth above in claim 1, wherein when the counter electrode unit (Fig.1, Element 51 and 52) and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer (Fig.1, Element 73) are electrically connected via the dope solution in the doping tank ([0014], Figure 1, Element 3 & 5).
Naoi further desires sufficient alkali-metal ion absorption in the electrode (see insertion/desorption, [0094]), though modified Naoi does not disclose the limitation, “a potential of the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer based on a reference lithium metal electrode is -10 V or more and 0 V or less, and the reference lithium metal electrode is installed in a portion other than a space where the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer face each other, the portion being within a distance of 7 mm from the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer.”
Hideaki discloses a similar method for producing a carbon electrode that is doped with lithium ions ([Spec., col. 6, lines 3-6]). Hideaki further discloses that the potential of the carbon electrode is repeatedly charged down to a potential of zero volts vs. the lithium reference electrode ([Spec., col. 6, lines 26-30]); and the reference lithium metal electrode (Fig. 2, Element 14), is installed in a portion other than a space where the counter electrode unit (Fig. 2, Element 13) and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer (Fig. 2, Element 11) face each other (Fig. 2).
Hideaki teaches that the carbon electrode is discharged up to 2.5 volts, the discharging capacity shows almost no decrease after more than 200 charge-discharge cycles ([Spec., col. 6, lines 30-32]), and the carbon electrode of the present embodiment efficiently absorbs charge carrier lithium ions ([Spec., col. 6, lines 23-25]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date, to further modify, Naoi with the teaching of Hideaki to repeatedly charge down the carbon electrode to a potential of zero volts vs. the lithium reference electrode to allow the electrode to efficiently absorb carrier lithium ions.
While Hideaki doesn’t directly disclose the limitation, “the reference lithium metal electrode being within a distance of 7 mm from the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer.”, the dimensions of the carbon electrode is the length, width and thickness thereof being 25 mm, 15 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively ([Spec., col. 6, lines 30-32]). Due to the carbon electrode being small, the reference electrode and the counter electrode should be similar sizes.
Examiner notes that for optimization of the carbon electrode, the electrolytic cell or the doping tank, should be a size relative to the electrodes.
Naoi teaches the negative current collector to have the dimensions of 70 mm in width, 382 m in length, and 15 μm in thickness ([0351]). The negative electrode active material layer was formed over a both surfaces of the current collector ([0351]). This shows that at least the lengths of the negative electrode active material layer and the current collector to be similar in size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date, to infer, that Naoi with the teaching of Hideaki to allow the reference electrode to be within the distance of 7 mm of the carbon electrode and to be in a space other than the space where the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer face each other. Examiner notes that for optimization of the within the doping tank, some distance apart between the electrodes must be allowed to keep them separate, but a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand not to place them too far apart and risk wasting space and risking hindering the electrical connection between the counter electrode unit and the strip-shaped electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK L TILLMAN-SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7am-4pm (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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/ELTS/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights