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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 19 recite the limitation “wherein a button battery containing the negative
electrode material has a charge gram capacity of Cap.C mAh/g and a discharge gram capacity of Cap.D mAh/g, wherein 13 ≤ Cap.C-Cap.D ≤ 18, 335.0 ≤ Cap.C ≤ 355.0, and 320.0 ≤ Cap.D ≤ 340.0” in lines 1-4 of claim 1, lines 5-7 of claim 9, and lines 6-8 of claim 19, which render the claims vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the charge gram capacity and discharge gram capacity of the button battery is the charge gram capacity and discharge gram capacity of the negative electrode material only, if it can be a combination of a positive electrode material (unnamed in the claims, but present in button batteries) and the negative electrode material, or if it is the charge gram capacity and discharge gram capacity including the mass of the entire battery.
It is further unclear how this limitation is further limiting the negative electrode material, as it is instead a limitation of the button battery and therefore does not appear to apply any further limitation to the negative electrode active material.
Claims 1, 9, and 19 recite the limitation “a particle size distribution of Dn10 of the negative electrode material satisfy 0.5 ≤ 0.5 x BET-Dn10 ≤ 2” (underline added) in claim 1 lines 8-9, claim 9 lines 11-12, and claim 19 lines 12-13 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear how the negative electrode material has a particle size distribution, as no particle has been claimed. Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation is implying that the negative electrode material comprises particles, or if this is an optional limitation in the scenario in which the negative electrode material comprises particles.
Furthermore, the equation “0.5 ≤ 0.5 x BET-Dn10 ≤ 2” renders the claim vague and ambiguous. It is unclear how Dn10, which is a unit of size per Applicant’s specification ([0027]), can be subtracted from BET, which has the units of m2/g. It is unclear if this subtraction step requires a conversion of one of the units to the other that is presently not known to the Examiner, or if this is a subtraction of the absolute values of BET and Dn10, irrespective of units.
Claims 4 and 15 recite the limitation “an OI value of the negative electrode material is 3 to 8” in lines 2-3 of each claim which renders the claim vague and indefinite. There is no indication, in either the claims or the specification, of what “OI” is an abbreviation for, and therefore it is unclear what this value is in reference to. For the purpose of examination, “OI” will be understood to stand for orientation index.
Claims 6 and 11 recite the limitation “(2) 0.8 ≤ Dn10 ≤ 1.4” in line 4 of each claim which renders the claims vague and indefinite. As the values surrounding Dn10 do not have units associated with them, it is unclear what size of Dn10 is desired, whether that be minimum and maximum sizes of 0.8 and 1.4 nm, µm, m, or other units entirely.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein a porosity of the negative electrode plate is σ and a compacted density of the negative electrode material is CD g/cm3 after being pressed under a pressure of 5 x 103 kg, (CD-P) x 100% ≤ σ ≤ 40%” (emphasis added) in lines 1-3 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “P” is in reference to, as no P value has been claimed in claim 9, which claim 18 is dependent on. It will be assumed, for examination purposes, that claim 18 is intended to be dependent on claim 16, which does claim a P value.
Claims 2-8 are further rejected as being dependent a rejected claim.
Claims 10-18 are further rejected as being dependent a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (European Patent Application Publication No. 3916850) in view of McKinney (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080961).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 19, Li teaches an electric apparatus containing a secondary battery (abstract), the secondary battery comprising a positive electrode plate, negative electrode plate, and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte) ([0020]). The negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode material layer (negative electrode film) comprising a negative electrode material (negative active material) and a negative electrode current collector ([0021]).
Li further teaches a degree of graphitization of the negative electrode material is G, and 90% ≤ G ≤ 95% ([0032]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 84% ≤ G ≤ 97%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Li further teaches a specific surface area of the negative electrode material is BET m2/g ([0042], [0062]) and a particle size distribution of Dn10 of the negative electrode material is ≥ 1 ([0005]).
Li further teaches a button battery that contains the negative electrode active material in which the gram capacity of the negative electrode material is tested ([0122]-[0123]).
Li does not explicitly teach a button battery containing the negative electrode material has a charge gram capacity of Cap.C mAh/g and a discharge gram capacity of Cap.D mAh/g, wherein 13 ≤ Cap.C−Cap.D ≤ 18, 335.0 ≤ Cap.C ≤ 355.0, and 320.0 ≤ Cap.D ≤ 340.0.
McKinney teaches negative electrodes for li-ion batteries ([0024]). McKinney further teaches a battery containing the negative electrode material has a charge gram capacity of Cap.C mAh/g of 360 mAh/g to 370 mAh/g ([0024]), as well as the understanding that this charge capacity could be lowered is possible ([0096]). While the range of McKinney does not overlap with the claimed range of 335.0 ≤ Cap.C ≤ 355.0, it is close. In the case where claimed ranges are sufficiently close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
McKinney further teaches a battery containing negative electrode material has a discharge gram capacity of Cap.D mAh/g, 348.56 ≤ Cap.D ≤ 363.13. While the range of McKinney does not overlap with the claimed range of 320.0 ≤ Cap.D ≤ 340.0, it is close. In the case where claimed ranges are sufficiently close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a negative electrode material in a button battery with the Cap.C and Cap.D ranges of McKinney in the battery of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these ranges as batteries with these charge/discharge gram capacities are frequently used in low to moderate power drawing devices, which would in turn result in increased commercial interest.
With the above imported ranges of Cap.C and Cap.D, this results in a range of 3.13 ≤ Cap.C-Cap.D ≤ 23.35. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 13 ≤ Cap.C−Cap.D ≤ 18. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Li further does not explicitly teach the specific surface area and a particle size distribution of Dn10 of the negative electrode material satisfy 0.5 ≤ 0.5 × BET−Dn10 ≤ 2.
McKinney further teaches a specific surface area of the negative electrode material is BET m2/g, wherein BET ≤ 5 m2/g ([0022]), which allows for reduced contamination and degradation of the electrode over standard graphite negative electrodes ([0024], [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a BET range of ≤ 5 m2/g, as taught by McKinney, in the negative electrode material of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range for the decrease in contamination and degradation of the electrode.
With the particle size distribution of Dn10 of the negative electrode material ≥ 1 of Li and the above imported range of BET ≤ 5 m2/g as taught by McKinney, this results in a range of 0.5 × BET−Dn10 ≤ 1.5. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 ≤ 0.5 × BET−Dn10 ≤ 2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, with the above imported Cap.D as taught by McKinney, Cap.D/187.88 ranges from 1.86 to 1.93 (resultant from 348.56/187.88 and 363.13/187.88).
Li further teaches a compacted density (powder compaction density) of the negative electrode material is CD g/cm3, 1.65 ≤ CD ≤ 1.85 ([0051]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.60 ≤ CD ≤ Cap.D/187.88 (in which Cap.D/187.88 has a maximum of 1.93 from the math above). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
The limitation “after being pressed under a pressure of 5×103 kg” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because modified Li discloses the negative electrode material with the same compacted density.
Regarding Claim 4 and 15, Li further teaches a tap density of the negative electrode material is TD g/cm3, wherein 0.85 ≤ TD ≤ 1.35 ([0050]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 ≤ TD ≤ 1.2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Li further teaches n OI value of the negative electrode material is 15 or less (abstract). This overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 8. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5 and 17, with the above imported ranges of Cap.C and Cap.D, this results in a range of 3.13 ≤ Cap.C-Cap.D ≤ 23.35. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 15 ≤ Cap.C−Cap.D ≤ 18. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, with the particle size distribution of Dn10 of the negative electrode material ≥ 1 of Li and the above imported range of BET ≤ 5 m2/g as taught by McKinney, this results in a range of 0.5 × BET−Dn10 ≤ 1.5. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 ≤ 0.5 × BET−Dn10 ≤ 1.7. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, Li teaches a particle size distribution of Dn10 of the negative electrode material is ≥ 1 ([0005]). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 ≤ Dn10 ≤ 1.4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, Li further teaches that Dv50 ranges from 15 µm to 22 µm ([0036]), and Dv10 ≥ 6 µm ([0038]). Li further teaches that 1.1 ≤ (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1.8 ([0044]). With this equation, Dv90 can be calculated as ranging Dv90 = (1.1 * Dv50 + Dv10) to Dv90 = (1.8 * Dv50 + Dv10). When using the respective minimum and maximum values for Dv50 and Dv10, this results in a range of 22.5 µm ≤ Dv90.
With the range of Dv50 of 15 µm to 22 µm and Dv90 of 22.5 µm or greater, Dv90/Dv50 ranges from 1.02 or greater. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.7 ≤ Dv90/Dv50 ≤ 2.1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
While modified Li does not teach 30 μm ≤ Dv99 ≤ 45 μm, as it is an optional limitation the claim is still made obvious.
Regarding Claims 8 and 12, the above imported range of BET ≤ 5 m2/g as taught by McKinney overlaps with the claimed range of 3.0 m2/g to 6.0 m2/g. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 16, Li further teaches the negative electrode plate has compacted density of the negative electrode plate is P g/cm3, 1.55 ≤ P ≤1.75 (abstract). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.40 ≤ P ≤ 1.70. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
While Li does not teach a capacity per unit area of a single side surface of the negative electrode plate is M mAh/cm2, 1.8 ≤ M ≤ 4.0, as this is an optional limitation the claim is still obvious over modified Li.
Claims 3, 7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (European Patent Application Publication No. 3916850) in view of McKinney (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080961), further in view of Ma (European Patent Application Publication No. 3961770).
Li and McKinney are relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Li further teaches that that Dv50 ranges from 15 µm to 22 µm ([0036]), and Dv10 ≥ 6 µm ([0038]). Li further teaches that 1.1 ≤ (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1.8 ([0044]). With this equation, Dv90 can be calculated as ranging Dv90 = (1.1 * Dv50 + Dv10) to Dv90 = (1.8 * Dv50 + Dv10).
With the range of Dv50 of 15 µm to 22 µm and Dv90 of 22.5 µm or greater, Dv90/Dv50 ranges from 1.02 or greater. This overlaps with the claimed range of Dv90/Dv50 ≤ 2.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Li does not explicitly teach a value for Dv99, nor the particle size distribution of the negative electrode material satisfies Dv99 ≤ 3.0 × Dv50 ≤ 50.0 μm and Dv90/Dv50 ≤ 2.5.
Ma teaches a secondary battery with a negative electrode containing a negative active material (abstract). Ma further teaches that the negative active material have a Dv99 value ranging from 25 µm to 37 µm ([0012]). When within this range, the battery can simultaneously have better dynamic performance, cycle performance at high temperature and safety performance ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to the Dv99 range as taught by Ma in the negative electrode material of modified Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for better dynamic performance, cycle performance at high temperature and safety performance.
With the above imported Dv99 range of 25 µm to 37 µm and Dv50 of 15 µm to 22 µm, it can be calculated that 3.0 x Dv50 ranges from 45 μm to 66 μm. Therefore, with the range of Dv99 and Dv50 given, modified Li teaches the particle size distribution satisfies Dv99 ≤ 3.0 × Dv50 ≤ 50.0 μm (when, for example, Dv99 is 25 µm and 3.0 x Dv50 is 45 µm).
Regarding Claim 7 and 14, with the above taught range of Dv50 of 15 µm to 22 µm and Dv90 of 22.5 µm or greater, Dv90/Dv50 ranges from 1.02 or greater. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.7 ≤ Dv90/Dv50 ≤ 2.1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Furthermore, the above imported Dv99 range of 25 µm to 37 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 30 μm ≤ Dv99 ≤ 45 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (European Patent Application Publication No. 3916850) in view of McKinney (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0080961), further in view of Kang (European Patent Application Publication No. 3955349).
Li and McKinney are relied upon as described above.
Modified Li does not teach a porosity of the negative electrode plate is σ, nor (CD−P) × 100% ≤ σ ≤ 40%.
Kang teaches a negative electrode active material, a secondary battery, and an apparatus including the secondary battery (abstract). Kang further teaches the porosity of the negative electrode plate is σ, 20% ≤ σ ≤ 50% ([0087]). This porosity allows for suitable electrolyte wettability and good reaction interface, so as to improve the charging and discharging performance of the negative electrode at a large rate ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a porosity within the range taught by Kang in the negative electrode plate of modified Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range for the improved charging and discharging performance of the negative electrode.
As discussed above, modified Li teaches 1.65 ≤ CD ≤ 1.85 ([0051]), 1.55 ≤ P ≤ 1.75 (abstract), and 20% ≤ σ ≤ 50% (Kang, [0087]). Therefore, (CD−P) × 100% ranges from -10% to 300%. Using the minimum value, this results in (CD−P) × 100% ≤ σ ≤ 40% being -5% ≤ σ ≤ 40%. As the above imported σ ranges from 20% to 50%, this overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 07/31/2026
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights