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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed March 8, 2024 and November 8, 2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received March 8, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: citing “a aqueous” wherein ‘an aqueous’ should be used instead (line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: having a superfluous “of” between “beneath” and “the current collector” (lines 2-3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: citing “is expose” wherein ‘is exposed’ is meant (line 3). 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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “the peak intensity” (line 2). However, the peak intensities set forth are associated with Ia and Itotal (see claim 1). It is unclear if/how the peak intensity is related to the peak intensities set forth. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
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.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0115665 (Fukatani et al.) in view of US 2019/0334161 (Lee et al.).
As to claim 1, Fukatani et al. teach a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (title), the negative electrode comprising:
a current collector (para 0015, 0017); and
a negative active material layer (para 0007-0011, 0017) on the current collector and comprising a copolymer binder (para 0009), a Si-C composite first negative active material (para 0064, 0125), and a crystalline carbon second negative active material (graphite, which is a crystalline carbon material) (para 0065, 0124),
wherein,
the copolymer binder comprises a first repeating unit derived from a
(meth)acrylic acid-based monomer and a second repeating unit derived from a
(meth)acrylonitrile monomer (para 0009, 0014 0077)
Fukatani et al. do not teach a DD (Degree of Divergence) value, defined by Equation 1, of the negative electrode is about 30 or more. Equation 1
DD (Degree of Divergence) = (Ia/Itotal) * 100,
wherein,
la is a sum of peak intensities at 2Ɵ = 42.4±0.2°, 43.4±0.2°, 44.6±0.2°, 77.5±
0.2° measured by X-Ray diffraction (XRD) utilizing a Cu Kα ray, and
Itotal is a sum of peak intensities at 2Ɵ = 26.5±0.2°, 42.4±0.2°, 43.4±0.2°, 44.6±0.2°, 54.7±0.2°, 77.5±0.2° measured by XRD utilizing a Cu Kα ray.
However, in the same field of endeavor (negative active material with graphite/crystalline carbon, silicon-carbon composite, binder (para 0022, 0041, 0062, 0080), Lee et al. teach:
a DD (Degree of Divergence) value, defined by Equation 1, of the negative electrode is about 24 or greater (overlaps claimed about 30 or more, thus renders it obvious; See MPEP §2144.05(I).). Equation 1
DD (Degree of Divergence) = (Ia/Itotal) * 100,
wherein,
la is a sum of peak intensities at 2Ɵ = 42.4±0.2°, 43.4±0.2°, 44.6±0.2°, 77.5±
0.2° measured by X-Ray diffraction (XRD) utilizing a Cu Kα ray, and
Itotal is a sum of peak intensities at 2Ɵ = 26.5±0.2°, 42.4±0.2°, 43.4±0.2°, 44.6±0.2°, 54.7±0.2°, 77.5±0.2° measured by XRD utilizing a Cu Kα ray (para 0005-0007, 0037-0046).
The motivation for having the DD value at 24 or greater is to have sufficient orientation to facilitate movement of Li ions in the negative electrode, which prevents an increase in the DC internal resistance and thus prevents deterioration in rate capability, particularly high-rate cycle-life characteristics (para 0046).
As to claim 2, the combination renders the claimed invention (the DD value of the negative electrode is about 30 to about 60) obvious, as Lee et al. relied upon to render obvious DD teaches of a DD value of about 24-50 (para 0045). The reasons for the combination are set forth in the rejection to claim 1 and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 3, Fukatani et al. teach an amount of the first repeating unit derived from the (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer is about 35 wt% to about 65 wt% based on an amount, 100 wt%, of the copolymer binder (about 40-70 wt% (para 0014); overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 4, Fukutani et al. teach an amount of the second repeating unit derived from the (meth)acrylonitrile monomer is about 35 wt% to about 65 wt% based on an amount, 100 wt%, of the copolymer binder (about 30-60 wt% (para 0014); overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 5, Fukutani et al. teach the copolymer binder further comprises a third repeating unit derived from an additional monomer which is capable of copolymerizing with the (meth)acrylic acid-based monomer and/or the (meth)acrylonitrile monomer (further included unit of other monomer) (para 0016, 0078).
As to claim 6, Fukutani et al. teach an amount of the third repeating unit is more than 0 wt% and about 20 wt% or less based on an amount, 100 wt%, of the copolymer binder (further included unit of other monomer) (para 0078).
As to claim 7, Fukutani et al. teach the copolymer binder is a copolymer of acrylic acid and acrylonitrile (abs; para 0009).
As to claim 8, Fukutani et al. teach an amount of the copolymer binder is about 0.5 wt% to about 5 wt% based on a total weight, 100 wt%, of the negative active material layer (2.5-4.5 wt% binder with 0.5-2 wt% water-soluble binder (acrylic acid-acrylonitrile-based copolymer included in 50% or more of the water soluble polymer) (para 0077, 0095-0097) (overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 9, Fukatani et al. teach an amount of Si is about 1 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total amount, 100 wt%, of the Si-C composite first negative active material and the crystalline carbon second negative active material (Si-based active material in 5-99 wt% of the total amount of active material, Si in the Si-based active material in 20-99 wt%) (including graphite (crystalline carbon)) (para 0069-0070)) (overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 10, Fukatani et al. teach an amount of Si is about 3 wt% to about 20 wt% based on a total amount, 100 wt%, of the Si-C composite first negative active material and the crystalline carbon second negative active material (Si-based active material in 5-99 wt% of the total amount of active material, Si in the Si-based active material in 20-99 wt%) (including graphite (crystalline carbon)) (para 0069-0070)) (overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 11, Fukatani eta l. teach a mixing ratio of the Si-C composite first negative active material to the crystalline carbon second negative active material is about 3:97 to about 10:90 by a weight ratio (Si-based active material in 5-99 wt% of the total amount of active material (including graphite (crystalline carbon)) (para 0069-0070) (overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 12, Fukatani et al. teach the negative active material layer has a thickness of about 10 μm to about 100 μm (50-150 μm; para 0102) (overlaps claimed range thus renders claimed range obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
As to claim 13, the combination renders the claimed invention (the peak intensity is a peak integral area value) obvious, as Lee et al. relied upon to render obvious DD, which relies upon peak intensity, teaches that the peak intensity is a peak integral area value (para 0019, 0043). The reasons for the combination are set forth in the rejection to claim 1 and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 14, Fukatani et al. teach the copolymer binder has a viscosity of about 500 mPa·s to about 3000 mPa·s in an aqueous solution with a solid amount of about 7 wt% (about 500-10,000 mPa·s at 8 wt% aqueous solution) (para 0019-0020, 0088-0090).
(Note: In one interpretation 8 wt% is about 7 wt% (regarding an aqueous solution, wherein any slight differences would still yield an overlapping range). Overlapping ranges are obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Alternately, if 8% does not constitute about 7%, and this difference yeidls a viscosity outside of the claimed range, any differences would be small, such that obviousness is still maintained. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).)
As to claim 15, Fukatani et al. teach the crystalline carbon second negative active material (graphite) is irregularly shaped, sheet-shaped, flake-shaped, spherically-shaped, or fiber-shaped artificial graphite or natural graphite, or a combination thereof (scales, lumps and/or granulated spheroids) (para 0065).
As to claim 16, Fukatani et al. teach the Si-C composite first negative active material comprises Si and a carbon-based material (para 0064, 0124). (A composite of silicon and carbon comprises silicon and carbon/carbon-based material barring further specification of the composite material. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).)
As to claim 17, the combination renders the claim limitation (the negative electrode is prepared by arranging a magnet beneath of the current collector; coating a negative active material layer composition comprising the Si-C composite first negative active material and the crystalline carbon second negative active material on the current collector; and drying the coated negative active material layer composition, and the magnet has strength of a magnetic field in a range of about 1000 Gauss to about 10000 Gauss) obvious, as:
Interpretation 1: Lee et al., relied upon to render obvious DD, teaches the method of making to achieve DD, including the negative electrode is prepared by arranging a magnet beneath of the current collector; coating a negative active material layer composition comprising the Si-C composite first negative active material and the crystalline carbon second negative active material on the current collector; and drying the coated negative active material layer composition, and the magnet has strength of a magnetic field in a range of about 1000 Gauss to about 10000 Gauss (para 0051-0053). The reasons for the combination are set forth in the rejection to claim 1 and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
Interpretation 2: At the very least, this limitation is a product by process limitation, wherein the product has been rendered obvious, and the process of making does not further limit the claimed product.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As to claim 18, the combination renders the claim limitation (after the coating of the negative active material layer composition, the coated negative active material layer composition is exposed to the magnetic field for about 3 seconds to about 15 seconds) obvious, as:
Interpretation 1: Lee et al., relied upon to render obvious DD teaches the method of making to achieve DD, including after the coating of the negative active material layer composition, the coated negative active material layer composition is exposed to the magnetic field for about 3 seconds to about 15 seconds (about 2-9 seconds (overlapping range is obvious; see MPEP §2144.05(I)); para 0052). The reasons for the combination are set forth in the rejection to claim 1 and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
Interpretation 2: At the very least, this limitation is a product by process limitation, wherein the product has been rendered obvious, and the process of making does not further limit the claimed product.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
As to claim 19, Fukatani et al. teach the negative active material layer composition has a viscosity of about 2000 cps to about 4000 cps at a room temperature (table 2; viscosity (examples with values that lie within claimed range); para 0155) (note: 1 cps = 1 mPa·s).
As to claim 20, Fukatani et al. teach a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: the negative electrode as claimed in claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake); a positive electrode comprising a positive active material; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (para 0036).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0352543 (Cheong et al.) teaches an active material layer with relative peak intensities (abs) and materials similar to that claimed (para 0052, 0055, 0067-0068).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
