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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka (WO 2014024937).
Regarding claim 1, Hayasaka teaches a negative electrode slurry comprising ([0001]):
a negative electrode active material comprising ([0016]):
a first active material comprising ([0016]):
silicon atoms in the first active material ([0022]);
a binder to bind the negative electrode active material (Abstract);
a solvent to disperse the negative electrode active material and the binder in the negative electrode slurry ([0003]);
the binder comprises a particulate dispersed body and a water-soluble copolymer (Abstract);
the water-soluble copolymer comprises a copolymer comprising ([0005]):
an acrylic acid-based monomer unit ([0060]);
a sodium styrene sulfonate monomer unit ([0067]);
an acrylonitrile-based monomer unit ([0039]);
a weight average molecular weight of the copolymer is about 300,000 to about 2,000,000 ([0044]);
an amount of the water-soluble copolymer is greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt % and less than or equal to about 2 wt % based on 100 wt % of the negative electrode active material and the binder (Abstract).
Hayasaka specifically teaches the atoms in an amount of 0.1 to 50 wt % of the first active material. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select an amount of silicon atoms within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 3, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the solvent is an aqueous solvent ([0048-0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the first active material comprises at least one selected from among for the base material:
a composite of silicon-containing particulates and a carbon material ([0017], [0019], [0021]);
silicon particulates ([0018]);
an alloy comprising silicon ([0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches an amount of the sodium styrene sultanate monomer unit in the copolymer is between 0.01 to 15 wt %.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select an amount of sodium styrene monomer within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the copolymer further comprises:
a monomer unit copolymerizable with the acrylic acid-based monomer unit ([0084]);
the sodium styrene sultanate monomer unit ([0067]);
the acrylonitrile-based monomer unit ([0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the water-soluble copolymer further comprises a cellulose ether comprising a carboxymethyl group or a salt of a cellulose ether comprising a carboxymethyl group ([0119-0122]).
Regarding claim 8, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the negative electrode slurry has a viscosity at 25 °C of greater than or equal to about 1000 mPa·s and less than or equal to about 5,000 mPa·s ([0109]).
Regarding claim 9, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the negative electrode active material further comprises a graphite-based active material as a second active material ([0017], [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches the negative electrode slurry further comprises a conductive agent ([0061], [0113]).
Regarding claim 11, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches a negative electrode, comprising a solid component of the negative electrode slurry as claimed in claim 1 ([0144]).
Regarding claim 13, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka further teaches ([0001]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka in view of Fukatani et al. (KR 20220049447), hereinafter Fukatani.
Regarding claim 2, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka fails to teach an amount of the acrylonitrile-based monomer unit in the copolymer is greater than or equal to about 10 wt % and less than or equal to about 50 wt % based on 100 wt % of the copolymer. Fukatani teaches an amount of the acrylonitrile-based monomer unit in the copolymer less than 60 wt % based on 100 wt % of the copolymer ([0013]).
Hayasaka and Fukatani are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the amount of acrylonitrile-based monomer unit taught by Hayasaka to the amount taught by Fukatani. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select an amount of acrylonitrile-based monomer unit within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaka in view of Hatta et al. (US 20170110760), hereinafter Hatta.
Regarding claim 12, Hayasaka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hayasaka fails to teach the negative electrode has a real capacity of greater than or equal to about 3.5 mAh/cm2 and less than or equal to about 10 mAh/cm2. Hatta teaches the negative electrode has a real capacity of greater than or equal to about 2.2 mAh/cm2 and less than or equal to about 10 mAh/cm2 ([0010]).
Hayasaka and Hatta are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the negative electrode of Hayasaka to possess the capacity taught by Hatta since such capacities are suitable for lithium-ion battery electrodes and represent a result-effective variable that affects battery performance characteristics. Optimization of such a variable through routine experimentation would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, because Hayasaka teaches the same negative electrode structure and composition as that recited in the instant claims, it is reasonable to conclude that the negative electrode of Hayasaka logically follows the it possess substantially the same properties including electrode capacity. Therefore, even if Hayasaka does not expressly disclose the claimed capacity range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expected the negative electrode taught by Hayasaka to exhibit similar capacity characteristics as those recognized in Hatta for the same type of negative electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights