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
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujino et al. (US 20220166061 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10-11:
Fujino et al. teaches a negative electrode comprising artificial graphite, i.e. matrix material, with a D50, i.e. Dv50, of 12 μm, i.e. D1, and Li7La3Zr2O12, i.e. lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide, with a D50 of 0.5 μm, i.e. D2 ([0183]).
It is therefore calculated that D2/D1 = 0.5/12 = 0.04167, meeting the claimed relational expression.
Although there is no explicit disclosure in Fujino et al. that D50 is Dv 50, if D50 disclosed by Fujino et al. is volume average particle size, D1, D2, and D2/D1 meet that presently claimed. Alternatively, if D50 of Fujino et al. is number average particle size or weight average particle size, given the broad range of D1, D2, and D2/D1 presently claimed, the values would necessarily meet the volume average particle sizes presently claimed.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-17:
Fujino et al. teaches a negative electrode as set forth above.
Further, Fujino et al. teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery with a mass ratio artificial graphite i.e. negative electrode material, to Li7La3Zr2O12, i.e. fast ion conductor, to a conductivity aid acetylene black, i.e. conductive agent, to a mixture of styrene butadiene rubber and carboxymethylcellulose, i.e. binder, is 94.5:2:1:1.5:1 ([0185]), and that a lithium-ion secondary battery including this ratio results in a high volume energy density and suppression of the degradation in output due to repeated charging and discharging even in a case in which the amount of the electrolyte solution held by the electrode is low ([0020]).
Regarding claim 18:
Fujino et al. teaches a positive electrode active material layer is exemplified by LiCoO2, LiCoO4, and LiMnxO4, i.e. lithium cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide ([0058]).
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.
Claims 1-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 113555539 A) in view of Schumacher et al. (CN 115136345 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Xu et al. and Schumacher et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claims 1-3, 10-11, 15-16:
Xu et al. teaches a negative electrode layer, i.e. negative electrode plate, comprising a graphite composite anode material, i.e. negative electrode material, with a core-shell structure comprising an artificial graphite core, i.e. matrix material, and a Li7La3Zr2O12 fast ion conductor is coated on the surface of the core ([n0027], [n0030], [n0037]), i.e. a fast ion conductor is present on a surface of the matrix material, wherein the fast ion conductor is a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide.
Xu et al. also teaches the graphite D50, is 5-15 μm ([n0018]), i.e. D1 is 5-15 μm.
However, Xu et al. does not teach the fast ion conductor has a Dv50 is D2 μm, wherein D2/D1 ≤ 0.1 and 0.05 ≤ D2 ≤ 1.
Schumacher et al. teaches the fast ion conductor has a D50 of 0.05-10 μm ([0023]), i.e. D2 is 0.05-10 μm, and that the advantage of the required particle size is its particularly low contact resistance and good sinterability ([n0032])
In light of the motivation for using the fast ion conductor D50 of 0.05-10 μm disclosed by Schumacher et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fast ion conductor D50 of 0.05-10 μm in the composite anode material of Xu et al. in order to achieve low contact resistance and good sinterability. It is therefore calculated that D2/D1 = 0.05/5 to 10/15 = 0.01 to 0.67, meeting the claimed relational expression.
Although there is no explicit disclosure in Xu et al. or Schumacher et al. that D50 is Dv50, if D50 disclosed by Xu et al. and Schumacher et al. is volume average particle size, D1, D2, and D2/D1 meet that presently claimed. Alternatively, if D50 of Xu et al. and Schumacher et al. is number average particle size or weight average particle size, given the broad range of D1, D2, and D2/D1 disclosed by Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al., the values would necessarily overlap the volume average particle sizes/ratio presently claimed.
Regarding claim 4-5:
Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. teaches a graphite composite anode material as set forth above.
Further, Schumacher et al. teaches 99% of the lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide powder has a diameter of 2.71 μm ([n0093]), i.e. D3 = 2.71 μm, and that the advantage of the required particle size is its particularly low contact resistance and good sinterability ([n0032]).
In light of the motivation for using 99% of the lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide powder with a diameter of 2.71 μm disclosed by Schumacher et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 99% of the lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide powder with a diameter of 2.71 μm in the composite anode material of Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. in order to achieve low contact resistance and good sinterability. It is therefore calculated that D2/D3 = 0.05/2.71 to 10/2.71 = 0.018 to 3.69, meeting the claimed relational expression. Although there is no explicit disclosure in Xu et al. or Schumacher et al. that D50 and D99 are D-v50 and Dv99, if D50 and D99 disclosed by Xu et al. and Schumacher et al. are volume average particle size, D2/D3 meets that presently claimed. Alternatively, if D50 and D99 disclosed Xu et al. and Schumacher et al. are number average particle size or weight average particle size, given the broad range of D2/D3 disclosed by Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al., the ratio would necessarily overlap the ratio presently claimed.
Regarding claims 6-9:
Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. teaches a graphite composite anode material as set forth above.
Further, Schumacher et al. teaches the lithium-ion conductor material which includes lithium lanthanum zirconate preferably has a conductivity of at least 5 × 10-4 S/cm which results in low contact resistance and high conductivity ([n0022], [n0017], [n0037]).
In light of the motivation for using a conductivity of at least 5 × 10-4 S/cm disclosed by Schumacher et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conductivity of at least 5 × 10-4 S/cm in the composite anode material of Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. in order to achieve low contact resistance and high conductivity.
Claims 12-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 113555539 A) in view of Schumacher et al. (CN 115136345 A) and further in view of Fujino et al. (US 20220166061 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Xu et al. and Schumacher et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claims 12-14, and 17-19:
Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. teaches a graphite composite anode material as set forth above.
Xu et al. also teaches a positive electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material; and the positive electrode active material comprises lithium iron phosphate ([n0028]).
Further, Xu et al. teaches the graphite composite negative electrode material has good stability and can greatly improve the safety of lithium-ion batteries, which is of great significance in the field of electric vehicle technology ([n0031]), i.e. an electronic apparatus.
However, Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. does not teach the negative electrode material further comprises a binder and a conductive agent, wherein based on a total mass of the negative electrode material, a mass percentage of the matrix material is 80% to 98%, a mass percentage of the fast ion conductor is 0.1% to 16%, and a sum of mass percentages of the binder and the conductive agent is 1% to 4% or a secondary battery, comprising the negative electrode plate.
Fujino et al. teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery with a mass ratio artificial graphite i.e. negative electrode material, to Li7La3Zr2O12, i.e. fast ion conductor, to a conductivity aid acetylene black, i.e. conductive agent, to a mixture of styrene butadiene rubber and carboxymethylcellulose, i.e. binder, is 94.5:2:1:1.5:1 ([0183]-[0185]), and that a lithium-ion secondary battery including this ratio results in a high volume energy density and suppression of the degradation in output due to repeated charging and discharging even in a case in which the amount of the electrolyte solution held by the electrode is low ([0020]).
In light of the motivation for using a lithium-ion secondary battery with a mass ratio of artificial graphite to Li7La3Zr2O12 to acetylene black to a mixture of styrene butadiene rubber and carboxymethylcellulose of 94.5:2:1:1.5:1 disclosed by Fujino et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lithium-ion secondary battery with a mass ratio of artificial graphite to Li7La3Zr2O12 to acetylene black to a mixture of styrene butadiene rubber and carboxymethylcellulose of 94.5:2:1:1.5:1 with the composite anode material of Xu et al. in view of Schumacher et al. in order to result in a high volume energy density and suppression of the degradation in output due to repeated charging and discharging even in a case in which the amount of the electrolyte solution held by the electrode is low.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights