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 Objections
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the claim limitation, “wherein the at least one hole extends in a thickness direction, of the negative electrode active material layer, from a surface of the negative electrode active material layer” should read, “wherein the at least one hole extends in a thickness direction[[,]]of the negative electrode active material layer[[,]]from a surface of the negative electrode active material layer”.
In claim 7, the claim limitation “a thickness ratio…is at most about 50:50 and greater than 0” should read, “a thickness ratio…is at most about 50:50 and greater than 0:100” for consistency with [0046] of the instant specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20190229341A1), herein after Lee ‘341, in view of Kim et al. (US20240274827A1) and Lee et al. (US20210050599A1, cited in IDS filed 03/19/2026), herein after Lee ‘599.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘341 discloses a negative electrode ([0013];[0078]) for a rechargeable battery (i.e. secondary battery, [0013]), comprising a current collector ([0013]); and a negative electrode active material (i.e. electrode mixture layer on one or both surface of current collector, [0013]) comprising a negative electrode active material (i.e. electrode active material, [0013];[0078]).
While Lee ‘341 does not explicitly disclose wherein the negative electrode active material comprises Si where a total volume of Si is greater than about 0 volume % and less than or equal to about 70 volume % based on a total 100 volume % of the negative electrode active material layer, Lee ‘341 does not appear to limit the negative electrode active material to a particular active material.
Kim teaches an anode with a multi-layer structure for a secondary battery ([0041];[0043]) containing silicon-based active materials ([0043]). Kim further discloses a first anode mixture layer on at least on surface of the anode current collector, and a second anode mixture layer on the first anode mixture layer ([0008]) Furthermore, Kim discloses the content of the silicon-based active in the first anode mixture layer may be 0.1 to 5% weight percent, and the content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer may be 5 to 30% by weight ([0057]).
Furthermore, Kim teaches the content of the silicon-based active material included in the entire anode mixture layer may be 0.1-20% by weight ([0058]) as when this range is satisfied, the high-capacity characteristics of the battery are secured and the impact of volume change of the silicon-based active material during charge/discharge may be effectively alleviated ([0058];[0031]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect Kim’s disclosed range for weight% of the Silicon-based active material to fall within or overlap with the claimed range of a total volume of Si of 0 to 70 volume% based on 100 volume% of the negative electrode active material, and that in controlling the weight% of the Silicon-based active material, Kim would similarly control the volume% of Si.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the total volume% of Si in the negative electrode active material layer to achieve the desired balance between high-capacity characteristics and minimizing volume expansion of Si, as taught by Kim.
Lee ‘341 further discloses the negative electrode comprises at least one hole (i.e. electrode mixture layer includes a plurality of fine holes, [0013]), but does not explicitly disclose a total volume of the at least one hole to be about 5 times or less of the total volume of Si.
Lee ‘599 teaches a similar electrode containing holes ([0057]) where the total volume occupied by holes in the active material may be about 0.1 vol% to 8 vol% based on a total volume of the active material layer ([0011]). Lee ‘599 further discloses that in removing the active material in an amount ranging from 0.1-8 vol%, the rate capabilities of the electrode can be enhanced without any substantial losses of active material particles and without substantial damage to active material particles ([0081]). A skilled artisan would recognize Lee ‘599’s disclosed vol% range for the holes is within/overlaps with the claimed range of “about 5 times or less of the total volume of Si” and that a skilled artisan would want to control the volume % of the holes in the active material layer for the reasons taught by Lee ‘599.
Furthermore, Kim teaches an embodiment of an anode layer with 15 wt% carbon-coated SiOx, 0.1 wt% carbon nanotubes, 1.2 wt% (carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), 0.6% styrene-butadiene rubber, and remaining 83.1% artificial graphite ([0101]-[0104];[0060]; Table 2, Example 1). This yields a volume percentage of 15 vol% SiOx, as shown through the calculations below. Kim teaches Si, SiOx, and Si alloys as possible silicon-based active materials ([0065]). As Si has a density of 2.33 g/cm3 compared to the density of SiOx being 2.196 g/cm3, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the Si vol% to be near the calculated SiOx vol% shown below. Thus, Lee ‘599’s taught 0.1-8 vol% of holes falls within the claim limitation of 5 times or less of the total volume of Si.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in addition to controlling the vol% of Si, to have further selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the vol% of holes in the active material layer, to achieve the desired balance between enhanced rate capabilities and loss of active material, as taught by Lee ‘599.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses wherein the at least one hole extends in a thickness direction of the negative electrode active material layer from a surface of the negative electrode active material layer (i.e. electrode mixture layer includes fine holes recessed towards current collector from a vertical cross-sectional surface thereof, Lee’ 341, [0013], Fig. 3). Thus, modified Lee ‘341 satisfies claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a first region in contact with the current collector (Lee ‘341, Fig. 4, 310) and a second region on the first region, as shown below in annotated Lee ‘341 Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image2.png
912
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee ‘341 Fig. 4
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the content of the silicon-based active in the first anode mixture layer adjacent to the current collector may be 0.1 to 5% weight percent, and the content of the second silicon-based active material included in the second anode mixture layer may be 5 to 30% by weight (Kim, [0057])
While modified Lee ‘341 but does not explicitly disclose the wt% of Si based on 100% wt of Si in the negative electrode active material layer, a skilled artisan would recognize that in possessing a greater weight percent of a silicon-based active material in the second anode mixture layer (i.e. second region), the second anode mixture layer possess 50 wt% or more of the total Si such that the first anode mixture layer (i.e. first region) possesses 50 wt% or less of the total Si, falling within the claimed ranges for wt% of Si in the first and second regions based on the total 100 wt% of Si.
Furthermore, Kim teaches that in controlling the content of the silicon-based active material in the first anode mixture layer (i.e. first region) to be low compared to the content of the silicon-based active material contained in the second anode mixture layer (i.e. second region), anode peeling, short circuits, and the like due to volume change of the silicon-based active material can be effectively prevented while the content of the silicon-based active material in the entire anode can still be maintained to achieve capacity characteristics ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have controlled for the amount of Si in the first and second regions in order to achieve the desired balance between issues caused by volume expansion (e.g. anode peeling, short circuit) while still maintaining the content of the silicon-based active material to achieve the desired capacity characteristics.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the electrode mixture layer including a plurality of fine holes recessed toward the current collector from a vertical cross-sectional surface thereof, and each of the fine holes is a horn-shaped hole whose diameter is gradually decreased from the vertical cross-sectional surface towards the current collector in the electrode mixture layer (Lee ‘341, [0013]).
A skilled artisan would recognize that due to the horn-shape of the at least one hole in the first region is less than 50 volume% based on the total volume of the at least one hole, while the at least one hole in the second region is more than 50% based on the total volume the at least one holes, as shown below in Lee ‘341 annotated Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
881
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee ‘342 Fig. 3
Thus, modified Lee ‘341 satisfies the claim limitation, “a volume of the at least one hole in the first region is greater than about 0 volume% and less than or equal to about 50 volume% based on the total volume of the at least one hole, and a volume of the at least one hole in the second region is less than about 100 volume% and greater than or equal to about 50 volume% based on the total volume of the at least one hole.”
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the fine holes may have an average diameter of about 100 to 200 micrometers at a vertical cross-sectional surface (i.e. at least one hole in the second region, Lee ‘341, [0022]). Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the fine holes may have an average diameter of about 20 to 50 micrometers at an inner part (i.e. at least one hole in the first region, Lee ‘341, [0022]).
Modified Lee ‘341’s disclosed diameter range for holes in the second region of 100 to 200 µm yields an area of 0.00785 mm2 to 0.0314 mm2. Similarly, modified Lee ‘341’s disclosed diameter range for holes in the first region of 20 to 50 µm yields an area of 0.000314 mm2 to 0.00196 mm2.
Thus, modified Lee ‘341 satisfies the claim limitation, “wherein an average area of the at least one hole in the second region is larger than an average area of the at least one hole in the first region”.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the fine holes may have an average diameter of about 100 to 200 micrometers at a vertical cross-sectional surface (i.e. area of at least one hole in the second region, Lee ‘341, [0022]). Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses when the average diameter at the vertical cross-sectional; surface is less than 100 micrometers, the diameter of the fine holes at the surface part at which the electrolyte solution starts to flow is too small, and thus the diffusion of the electrolytic solution through the fine holes may not be easily performed (Lee ‘341, [0023]). Lee ‘341 further discloses when the average diameter of the vertical cross-sectional surface is more than 200 micrometers, the diameter of the fine holes at the surface part becomes excessively large, and thus the capacity of the electrolyte may be lowered (Lee ‘341, [0023]).
Furthermore, modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the fine holes may have an average diameter of about 20 to 50 micrometers at an inner part (i.e. at least one hole in the first region, Lee ‘341, [0022]). Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses when the average diameter at the inner part is less than 20 µm, the fine holes may not be easily formed by a pressure applied to the electrode mixture layer, and when the average diameter of the inner part is more than 50 µm, diffusion of the electrolytic solution may be deteriorated in the process of forming the fine holes (Lee ‘341, [0024]).
Modified Lee ‘341’s disclosed diameter range for holes in the second region of 100 to 200 µm yields an area of 0.00785 mm2 to 0.0314 mm2 which is overlaps with the claimed range of 0.025 mm2 to 0.5 mm2 of claim 5. Similarly, modified Lee ‘341’s disclosed diameter range for holes in the first region of 20 to 50 µm yields an area of 0.000314 mm2 to 0.00196 mm2, which is within the claimed range of 0 mm2 to 0.25 mm2 of claim 6.
Modified Lee ‘341 does not explicitly disclose the average area of at least one hole in the first region or the second region per unit area of 1 mm x 1 mm of the negative electrode active material layer.
Lee ‘599 teaches a similar anode perforated with holes spaced from each other at an average distance ranging from 70 µm to 900 µm ([0053]). Lee ‘599 further teaches that the size, shape, and spacing between the holes may be selected to increase an electrode charge and discharge capacity at varying constant current rates ([0062]-[0065]).
A skilled artisan would appreciate controlling both the diameter of the fine holes in the first and second region, as taught by Lee ‘341, as well as the distance between holes, as taught by Lee ‘599, in order to achieve a balance between sufficient electrolyte flow through the fine holes, maintaining capacity of the electrode, and reducing challenges during processing.
Furthermore, as an example for the second region comprising of holes with a diameter of 100 µm (area is 0.00785 mm2) spaced 100 µm apart, an estimated maximum number of holes for a 1 mm x 1 mm area is about 25 holes. This yields an average area of the at least one holes in the second region to be about 0.157 mm2 (25 x 0.00785 mm2 = 0.157 mm2), which is within the claimed range of about 0.025 mm2 to about 0.5 mm2, as claimed in claim 5.
Similarly, as an example for the first region comprising of holes with a diameter of 50 µm (area is 0.00196 mm2) spaced 100 µm apart, an estimated maximum number of holes for a 1 mm x 1 mm area is about 50 holes. This yields an average area of the at least one hole in the first region to be about 0.098 mm2 (50 x 0.00196 mm2), which is within the claimed region of less than about 0.25 mm2 to greater than about 0, as claimed in claim 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived within the claimed range of the average area of the at least hole in the first and second regions per unit area of 1 mm by 1 mm in order to achieve the desired balance between electrolyte flow through the fine holes and capacity of the electrode.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 discloses the raw material of the silicon-based active material (i.e. negative electrode active material) before carbon coating or metal doping may be at least one selected from Si, SiOx, and a Si-C composite (Kim, [0056]). Modified Lee ‘341 further includes an embodiment where SiOx was used as the silicon-based active material (Kim, [0102])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected SiOx or a Si-C from the finite list of silicon-based active materials provided by Kim with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful anode.
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses a silicon-based material of silicon oxide with a carbon coating layer (Kim, [0102]) where the carbon coating layer may include at least one selected from amorphous carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, graphite, graphene, graphene oxide, and reduced graphene ([0044]).
Kim further teaches the anode comprising a carbon-based active material, as claimed in claim 10, such as artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, super P, graphene, and fibrous carbon ([0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the negative electrode active material further comprise a carbon-based material, with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful anode as these are common active materials used in the art, as taught by Kim.
Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize that artificial and natural graphite are crystalline carbon materials, as claimed in claim 11.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected artificial graphite or natural graphite from the finite list of carbon-based active materials provided by Kim, with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful anode active material layer.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (i.e. lithium secondary battery, Lee ‘341, [0004]) comprising the negative electrode of claim 1 (Lee ‘341, [0081]); a positive electrode (Lee ‘341, [0081]), and an electrolyte (i.e. electrolyte solution, Lee ‘341, [0081]).
Claims 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20190229341A1), herein after Lee ‘341, Kim et al. (US20240274827A1), Lee et al. (US20210050599A1), herein after Lee ‘599, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US20210408551 A1, cited in IDS filed 03/19/2024).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 discloses a first region in contact with the current collector and a second region on the first region, as shown below in annotated Lee ‘341 Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image4.png
912
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee ‘341 Fig. 4
Lee ‘341 does not explicitly disclose a thickness ratio of a thickness of the first region to a thickness of the second region is at most 50:50 and greater than 0:100.
Ahn teaches a similar negative electrode with multiple negative active material layers having different Si amounts ([0056]). Ahn further teaches a first region adjacent to the current collector and a second region not adjacent to the current collector ([0027]) where the first region may correspond to about 1% of the thickness of the negative active material layer to about 75% of the total thickness of the negative active material layer when the total thickness of the negative active material layer is set to about 100% ([0028]). This allows for a thickness of the second region to be from about 25% to 99% of the total thickness of the active material layer, yielding a thickness ratio of 1:99 to 75:25, which overlaps with the claimed thickness ratio of 50:50 to 0:100.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the thickness ratio ranges, with reasonable expectation of success of achieving a successful multi-layered negative electrode active material layer.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee ‘341 discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses the fine holes may have an average diameter of about 100 to 200 micrometers at a vertical cross-sectional surface and may have an average diameter of about 20 to 50 micrometers at an inner part thereof (Lee ‘341, [0022]). Modified Lee ‘341 further discloses when the average diameter at the vertical cross-sectional surface is less than 100 micrometers, the diameter of the fine holes at the surface part at which the electrolyte solution starts to flow is too small, and thus the diffusion of the electrolytic solution through the fine holes may not be easily performed (Lee ‘341, [0023]). Furthermore, modified Lee ‘341 further discloses when the average diameter of the vertical cross-sectional surface is more than 200 micrometers, the diameter of the fine holes at the surface part becomes excessively large, and thus the capacity of the electrolyte may be lowered (Lee ‘341, [0023]).
While modified Lee ‘341 does not explicitly disclose wherein the second region, a spacing between adjacent holes is about 50 µm to about 100 µm, a skilled artisan would recognize that modified Lee ‘341 necessarily possesses a spacing between adjacent holes and would reasonably expect the spacing between adjacent holes to be of a similar magnitude.
Nevertheless, Lee ‘599 teaches a similar anode perforated with holes spaced from each other at an average distance ranging from 70 µm to 900 µm ([0053]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 50 µm to 100 µm. Lee ‘599 further teaches that the size, shape, and spacing between the holes may be selected to increase an electrode charge/discharge capacity at varying constant current rates ([0062]-[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful anode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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, 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights