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 1-20 are pending in the application
Examiners Comment
To improve clarity for the groupings listed in Claims 2, 5, 7-8, 10, 13, and 19-20, it would be beneficial to use the standard Markush grouping language of “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" (MPEP 2173.05(h)).
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, 4-5, 8-11, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314).
Regarding Claim 1, Petrowsky teaches a dry electrode film (electrode film prepared by a dry process, abstract) which includes a dry electrode active material (dry active material, [0005]), a dry binder ([0005]), and a nitrogen-containing anion (dry electrolyte salt, which may be LiNO3, will result in the inclusion of a Li+ cation and NO3- anion [0005] and [0006]). The dry electrode active material also includes a first metal oxide ([0079]), in which the metal is one of silicon, tin, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, or copper, and a first carbonaceous material ([0076]).
Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the dry electrode active material comprises a core and a shell conforming to a surface of the core, the shell comprising a first metal oxide and a first carbonaceous material, the first metal oxide being in a matrix of the first carbonaceous material, and the first metal oxide being represented by MaOb (0<a≤3 and 0<b<4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer), and M is at least one metal selected from among Group 2 to Group 16 in the Periodic Table of Elements.
Son teaches a composite cathode active material for a lithium battery (title). Son further teaches the electrode active material comprises a core and a shell conforming to a surface of the core, the shell comprising a first metal oxide and a first carbonaceous material, the first metal oxide being in a matrix of the first carbonaceous material, and the first metal oxide being represented by MaOb (0<a≤3 and 0<b<4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer), and M is at least one metal selected from among Group 2 to Group 14 and Group 16 in the Periodic Table of Elements (abstract). This core-shell structure with the first metal oxide in a matrix of a first carbonaceous material allows for a reduction in the aggregation of the carbonation material, in turn allowing for a substantially uniform shell to be formed on the core, which prevents degradation of the electrode by preventing unintended side reactions of the electrode active material and the electrolyte ([0043]).
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 the core-shell structure and molecular makeup of Son in the dry electrode active material of Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent degradation of the electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 2, Petrowsky further teaches that the nitrogen-containing anion (dry electrolyte salt, [0005] and [0006]) which may be LiNO3, will result in the inclusion of a Li+ cation and NO3- anion.
While Petrowsky does not explicitly teach results of a mass spectrometry analysis of the dry electrode film comprises a peak corresponding to NO3-, a peak corresponding to NO2-, a peak corresponding to NO-, or a combination of the peaks, the limitations are inherent to the invention. Due to the inclusion of LiNO3 in the electrode composition, a mass spectrum analysis would result in the peak corresponding to NO3-. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.III
Regarding Claim 4, Petrowsky further teaches the dry electrode film comprises the nitrogen-containing anion and a first lithium salt compound which is LiNO3, and the nitrogen-containing anion is derived from the first lithium salt compound ([0005]-[0006], an NO3- anion will result from the inclusion of LiNO3). An amount of the first lithium salt compound is 1 wt% to 10 wt% of the dry electrode film ([0007]). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film. 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, Petrowsky further teaches the dry electrode active material contains a second lithium salt compound, which can include Li2S, Li3N, or a combination thereof ([0102]).
Regarding Claim 8, Petrowsky does not explicitly teach a metal in the first metal oxide is at least one metal selected from among Al, Nb, Mg, Sc, Ti, Zr, V, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Zn, Sb, and Se, and the first metal oxide is at least one selected from among Al2Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2Oz (0<z<3), Co3Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2).
Son further teaches a metal in the first metal oxide is at least one metal selected from among Al, Nb, Mg, Sc, Ti, Zr, V, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Zn, Sb, and Se, and the first metal oxide is at least one selected from among Al2Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2Oz (0<z<3), Co3Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2) ([0045]). The selection of these metals allows for them to be uniformly placed in the carbonaceous material matrix, which allows for increased uniformity in the placement of the shell on the core of the electrode active material, in turn improving the voltage resistance of the electrode active material ([0045]).
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 the metals for the first metal oxide as taught by Son in the electrode active material of Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these metals for the improved voltage resistance of the electrode active material.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the shell further includes a second metal oxide, the second metal oxide being represented by MaOc (0<a≤3 and 0<c≤4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer), the second metal oxide including a same metal as the first metal oxide, a ratio c/a of c to a in the second metal oxide having a greater value than a ratio b/a of b to a in the first metal oxide, and the second metal oxide is in the matrix of the first carbonaceous material.
Son further teaches teach the shell further includes a second metal oxide, the second metal oxide being represented by MaOc (0<a≤3 and 0<c≤4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer), the second metal oxide including a same metal as the first metal oxide, a ratio c/a of c to a in the second metal oxide having a greater value than a ratio b/a of b to a in the first metal oxide, and the second metal oxide is in the matrix of the first carbonaceous material ([0046]). The inclusion of the second metal oxide allows for formation of the first metal oxide as a reduction product of the second metal oxide ([0046]), resulting in a simplified manufacturing process over including both the first and second metal oxides separately.
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 include the second metal oxide as taught by Son in the electrode active material of Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the simplification of manufacture.
Regarding Claim 10, the above imported second metal oxide as taught by Son is selected from among Al2O3, NbO, NbO2, Nb2O5, MgO, Sc2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, V2O3, WO2, MnO2, Fe2O3, Co3O4, PdO, CuO, AgO, ZnO, Sb2O3, and SeO2, and the first metal oxide is a reduction product of the second metal oxide ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 11, the above imported shell of modified Petrowsky, as taught by Son, has a thickness of 1 nm to 5 μm ([0049]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 nm to about 5 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)
Furthermore, the above imported shell of modified Petrowsky, as taught by Son, may include a monolayer structure (i.e. when the only layer on the core is the shell, [0043]) or a multilayer structure (i.e. when the shell includes an intermediate layer, [0050]).
Furthermore, the above imported shell of modified Petrowsky, as taught by Son, has an amount of the shell with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode active material being 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% (Examples 1-4, [0135]-[0139]). This overlaps with the claimed range of an amount of the shell with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode active material is about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%. 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)
An amount of the first metal oxide with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode active material is 1.8% or less. This is derived from the composite of Son, which includes both the first metal oxide, the second metal oxide, and graphene, comprising up to 3% of the total weight of the electrode active material ([0051]-[0052]), and that when the composite was formed using aluminum oxide as the second metal oxide, the content of alumina (a mixture of the first metal oxide and second metal oxide) in the composite was 60% ([00130]-[00132]).
Therefore, the amount of the first metal oxide in the electrode active material ranges from 0% (if none of the aluminum oxide is successfully converted to the reduced first metal oxide) up to 1.8% (when all of the aluminum oxide is successfully converted to the reduced first metal oxide. As 3% of the total mass of the electrode active material may be made of the composite, and the aluminum oxide is 60% of the composite, the amount of the first metal oxide can be calculated as 60% of 3%, or 1.8%). This overlaps with the claimed range of an amount of the first metal oxide with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode active material is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt%. 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 “wherein the shell is a dry-coating layer” is a method limitation (as described in Applicant’s specification, [0076], a dry-coating layer is a layer introduced by a dry method) 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 Petrowsky discloses the shell structure and makeup of the core-shell electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 13, Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the core comprises a lithium transition metal oxide, wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by one selected from among Formula 1 to Formula 8:
Formula 1 LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb wherein, in Formula 1, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.8≤x<1, 0≤y≤0.3, and 0<z≤0.3, wherein x+y+z=1, M is manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), boron (B), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof,
Formula 2 LiNixCoyMnzO2
Formula 3 LiNixCoyAlzO2 wherein, in Formulas 2 and 3, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, and x+y+z=1,
Formula 4 LiNixCoyMnzAlwO2 wherein, in Formula 4, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, 0<w≤0.2, and x+y+z+w=1,
Formula 5 LiaCoxMyO2-bAb wherein, in Formula 5, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.9≤x≤1, and 0≤y≤0.1, wherein x+y=1, M is manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), boron (B), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof,
Formula 6 LiaNixMnyM’zO2-bAb wherein, in Formula 6, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0<x≤0.3, 0.5≤y<1, 0<z≤0.3, and x+y+z=1, M' is cobalt (Co), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), boron (B), or a combination thereof, A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof,
Formula 7 LiaM1xM2yPO4-bXb wherein, in Formula 7, 0.90≤a≤1.1, 0≤x≤0.9, 0≤y≤0.5, 0.9<x+y<1.1, and 0≤b≤2, M1 is chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), or a combination thereof, M2 is magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), boron (B), niobium (Nb), gallium (Ga), indium (In), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), chromium (Cr), vanadium (V), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), or a combination thereof, and X is O, F, S, P, or a combination thereof,
Formula 8 LiaM3zPO4 wherein, in Formula 8, 0.90≤a≤1.1 and 0.9≤z≤1.1, and M3 is chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), or a combination thereof.
Son further teaches the core the core comprises a lithium transition metal oxide ([0063]), where the wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by one selected from among:
Formula 1 LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb wherein, in Formula 1, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.8≤x<1, 0≤y≤0.3, and 0<z≤0.3, wherein x+y+z=1, M is manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), boron (B), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof ([0063]-[0066]),
Formula 2 LiNixCoyMnzO2 ([0067])
Formula 3 LiNixCoyAlzO2 wherein, in Formulas 2 and 3, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, and x+y+z=1 ([0067]-[0068]).
These lithium transition metal oxides provide excellent initial capacity, improved room-temperature lifetime characteristics, and improved high-temperature lifetime characteristics ([0069]).
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 the lithium transition metal oxides in the core of the electrode active material as taught by Son in the electrode active material of Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the excellent initial capacity, improved room-temperature lifetime characteristics, and improved high-temperature lifetime characteristics.
Regarding Claim 18, Petrowsky further teaches a dry electrode which includes an electrode current collector and the dry electrode film as claimed in claim 1 on both sides of the electrode current collector ([0080], and fig 1 ref. #108, #112, #114).
Regarding Claim 20, Petrowsky further teaches a lithium battery (energy storage device, [0062] and [0066]-[0067]) which includes a first electrode ([0067] and fig. 1 ref. #102) and a second electrode ([0062] and fig. 1 ref. #104) with an electrolyte between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0062], as the electrolyte contacts both the first electrode and the second electrode it must be between the two). At least one of the first electrode or the second electrode is the dry electrode as claimed in claim 18 ([0080]).
The electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte or a solid electrolyte ([0064]).
While Petrowsky does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte comprises an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof, this is only further limiting the optional limitation of a liquid electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, or a combination thereof. Therefore, modified Petrowsky still obviates the limitations of claim 20.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Tessier (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0017447) and Wu (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 114824161). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-107482223-A.
Petrowsky and Son are relied upon as described above.
Petrowsky further teaches the dry electrode film has a capacity per unit area of at least 10 mAh/cm2 ([0079]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 8.5 mAh/cm2 or more. 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 Petrowsky does not explicitly teach a charge transfer activation energy (Ea) derived from a charge transfer resistance (Rct) measured by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of the dry electrode film is 15 KJ/mol or less.
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach a difference between a charge transfer resistance (Rct) and an ionic resistance (Rion) as measured at 25 °C by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of the dry electrode film is less than 10 ohm/cm2.
Tessier teaches an electrode active material for a battery (abstract). Tessier further teaches the electrode active material has a charge transfer resistance (Rct) of less than 80 ohm/cm2 at 25 °C (room temperature, [0027]). This a charge transfer resistance (Rct) range allows proper material exchange to occur and the battery to function at 25 °C ([0012] and [0067])
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 have a charge transfer resistance (Rct) of less than 80 as taught by Tessier in the electrode of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this value to allow for proper battery function at room temperature.
Wu teaches a battery electrode active material (material composition, title). The electrode active material has an ionic resistance (Rion) of 20.4 ohm/cm2 . This ionic resistance allows for higher conductivity of the battery ([0078]).
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 an ionic resistance (Rion) of 20.4 ohm/cm2 as taught by Wu in the electrode active material of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this value for the increased conductivity of the electrode.
Within the above range of charge transfer resistance (Rct) of 80 20.4 ohm/cm2 or less and ionic resistance (Rion) of 20.4 ohm/cm2, there are a range of values in which a difference between a charge transfer resistance (Rct) and an ionic resistance (Rion) as measured at 25 °C by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of the dry electrode film is less than 10 ohm·cm2. Therefore, modified Petrowsky renders this limitation obvious.
While modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach “a charge transfer activation energy (Ea) derived from a charge transfer resistance (Rct) measured by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of the dry electrode film is 15 KJ/mol or less,” said limitations are inherent to the invention. The use of similar materials (i.e. the same dry electrode active material, dry binder, core-shell structure, first carbonaceous material and first metal oxide being in a matrix of the first carbonaceous material) used to produce the electrode film with a dry process results in an identical structure. While a charge transfer activation energy (Ea) derived from a charge transfer resistance (Rct) measured by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is not explicitly disclosed by Petrowsky, if an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy of the dry electrode film were to be done the identical results would be found. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.III
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Suh (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0072865).
Petrowsky and Sun are relied upon as described above.
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the dry electrode film comprises the nitrile group-containing compound and an amount of the nitrile group-containing compound is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film, nor the nitrile group-containing compound comprises two or more nitrile groups, and wherein the nitrile group-containing compound comprises succinonitrile, adiponitrile, pentane-1,2,3-tricyanide, pentane-1,2,5-tricyanide, hexane-1,2,6-tricyanide, hexane-1,3,6-tricyanide, or a combination thereof.
Suh teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (title) and additives for the electrodes and electrolyte for the lithium battery ([0008]). Suh further teaches the additive can be represented by the following formula (abstract, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the chemical formula shown above, k, l, m, and n may range from 0 to 20, and k, l and m are selected such that the compound of the above chemical formula has an asymmetric structure ([0007]). Variations of k, l, m, and n allow for pentane-1,2,3-tricyanide, pentane-1,2,5-tricyanide, hexane-1,2,6-tricyanide, hexane-1,3,6-tricyanide ([0029]-[0030]).
The nitrile-group containing compounds may be added to the electrode at 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrode ([0008]). The addition of these specific nitrile-containing compounds, in this weight range, allows for electrodes that have increased thermal impact durability while being less harmful to the health of users than other traditional additives ([0106]).
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 include the nitrile-group containing compounds of in the weight amounts described by Suh in the electrode of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased thermal durability with decreased health risks.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Mun (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0377655) and Seol (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0159131).
Petrowsky and Son are relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the shell further comprises a second carbonaceous material, the second carbonaceous material comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material, and the second carbonaceous material comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, or a combination thereof, wherein the carbon nanotubes comprise a primary carbon nanotube structure, a secondary carbon nanotube structure formed by agglomeration of a plurality of primary carbon nanotube particles, or a combination thereof, and wherein the primary carbon nanotube structure is one carbon nanotube unit.
Mun teaches a positive electrode (cathode) active material with a core-shell (core and capsule) structure (abstract and [0045]). Mun further teaches the shell contains a carbonaceous material which comprises carbon nanofibers ([0051]-[0052]), which is a fibrous carbonaceous material. This allows for increased electronic conductivity in the shell of the electrode active material ([0052]).
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 the carbon nanofibers of Mun as a second carbonaceous material in the shell of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the improved electronic conductivity.
Modified Petrowsky does not teach the second carbonaceous material has an aspect ratio of 10 or greater.
Seol teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (abstract). Seol further teaches the positive electrode active material contains a fibrous carbonaceous additive in the form of carbon nanofibers ([0044]) that have an aspect ratio of 20 to 100 ([0043]). This range overlaps with the claimed aspect ratio range of 10 or more. 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). If the aspect ratio falls is below this range, cycle characteristics may be reduced, and if the aspect ratio is above this range, uniform dispersion of the nanofibers is difficult ([0043]).
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 the aspect ratio range as taught by Seol in the electrode active material of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range for the increased conductivity, improved cycle characteristics, and ease of dispersion of the nanofibers.
Regarding Claim 16, Petrowsky further teaches the dry electrode film further includes a dry conductive material, which may be a conductive carbonaceous material such as carbon nanotubes ([0076]). An amount of the dry conductive material may be 0 wt% to 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film ([0078]).
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach that the carbonaceous conductive material comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material having an aspect ratio of 10 or more, a particulate carbonaceous material having an aspect ratio of less than 10, or a combination thereof. However, as this limitation covers all possible ranges of aspect ratios, and as anything with measurable size will have an aspect ratio, this limitation must be obviated by Petrowsky.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Choi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0145322).
Petrowsky and Son are relied upon as described above.
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the dry electrode active material comprises a first dry electrode active material and a second dry electrode active material, the first dry electrode active material and the second dry electrode active material having a different particle size from each other, the first dry electrode active material is a large-diameter dry electrode active material having a larger particle size than a particle size of the second dry electrode active material, the second dry electrode active material is a small-diameter dry electrode active material, the first dry electrode active material and the second dry electrode active material have a bimodal particle size distribution in a particle size distribution diagram, a particle size ratio of the first dry electrode active material to the second dry electrode active material is about 3 : 1 to about 40 : 1, the particle size of the first dry electrode active material is about 8 µm but about 30 µm, and the particle size of the second dry electrode active material is about 1 µm to less than about 8 µm, and a weight ratio of the first dry electrode active material to the second dry electrode active material is about 90 : 10 to about 60 : 40.
Choi teaches a composite cathode active material for a lithium battery (title) that has a core shell structure (core with a coating layer, abstract). The electrode active material includes a first electrode active material (large-diameter cathode active material, [0053]) and a second electrode active material (small-diameter cathode active material, [0054]). The first electrode active material and the second electrode active material having a different particle size from each other, with the first electrode active material is a large diameter particle having a larger size than the second electrode active material, which is a small diameter particle, as the ratio of the size of the first electrode active material to the second electrode active material ranges from 2:1 to 20:1 ([0057]). This overlaps with the claimed ratio range of 3:1 to about 40:1. 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).
Choi further teaches the size of the first electrode active material ranges from 10 µm to 20 µm ([0053]), and the size of the second electrode active material ranges from 0 µm to 5 µm ([0055]). These sizes overlap with the claimed size ranges of 8 µm but about 30 µm for the first electrode active material and about 1 µm to less than about 8 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).
Choi further teaches a weight ratio of the first dry electrode active material to the second dry electrode active material is 90:10 to 80:20 (Examples 1-3, [0106]-[[0113]), which overlaps with the claimed range of about 90:10 to about 60:40. 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).
Choi further teaches the first electrode active material and the second electrode active material have a bimodal particle size distribution in a particle size distribution diagram ([0054]).
The use of the two electrode active materials with different sizes, in the weight ratio, size distribution, and size ratio of Choi, allows for improved charge/discharge characteristics of the electrode ([0053] and [0054]) and a battery with high capacity at relatively low voltage capable of preventing deterioration in the performance of the battery ([0006]).
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 the two separate sizes of electrode active material particles with the size and weight ratios of Choi as the dry electrode active material of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the improved charge/discharge characteristics, high capacity, and decreased performance deterioration.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Kageura (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0062868).
Petrowsky and Son are relied upon as described above.
Petrowsky further teaches that the dry binder includes a fibrillized binder ([0081]) and the dry binder includes a fluorinated binder such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ([0079]. The amount of the dry binder is 1.5 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film. This overlaps with the claimed range of an amount of the dry conductive material is about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film. 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 Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the dry binder has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of about 15 °C to about 100 °C
Kageura teaches an electrode for a secondary battery that contains electrode active material (abstract) and a fluorinated binder ([0055]). Kageura also teaches the glass transition temperature of the binder is -50 °C to 25 °C, which allows for improvement in the flexibility of the electrode and improved performance under a low temperature environment ([0056]). The glass transition temperature range overlaps with the claimed range of 15 °C to 100 °C. 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).
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 binder with a glass transition temperature within the range taught by Kageura in the electrode of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the improved flexibility and low temperature performance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Kang (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0042207).
Petrowsky and Son are relied upon as described above.
Petrowsky further teaches that the dry electrode film is a self-standing film ([0005]) and that the dry electrode film is free of residual processing solvent ([0128]).
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the dry electrode film has a tensile strength of about 800 kPa to about 5,000 kPa.
Kang teaches a dry electrode film including a fibrillized binder (abstract). Kang further teaches the electrode film having a tensile strength of 500 kPa to 10,000 kPa (0.25 MPa to 10 MPA, [0052]), which allows for sufficient mechanical strength of the dry electrode while not being so high that the tensile elongation increases, which would deteriorate process efficiency ([0052]). The range of tensile strength of the dry electrode overlaps with the claimed range of about 800 kPa to about 5,000 kPa. 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).
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 dry electrode with the tensile strength as taught by Kang in the dry electrode of modified Petrowsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this tensile strength for the sufficient mechanical strength of the dry electrode without deterioration of process efficiency.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0006071) in view of Son (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0376314), further in view of Kourtakis (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0287995) and Oh (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014031).
Petrowsky and Son are relied upon as described above.
Modified Petrowsky further teaches the current collector comprises a metal layer made of copper (Cu) or nickel (Ni) ([0067]).
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the dry electrode including an interlayer between the electrode current collector and the dry electrode active material layer, where the interlayer comprises a carbonaceous conductive material.
Kourtakis teaches an electrode for a lithium-ion battery (abstract and [0006]). Kourtakis further teaches the electrode includes an interlayer between the electrode current collector and the electrode active material layer (abstract), the interlayer comprising a carbonaceous conductive material such as carbon blacks, turbostratic carbons and graphitic carbons, as well as conductive fibers such as carbon nanotubes or nanofibers ([0016]). This combination of layers allows for decreased contact resistance of the electrode and increased adherence of the cathode active material to the current collector ([0008]).
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
Modified Petrowsky does not explicitly teach the electrode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one side or both sides of the base film, wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof.
Oh teaches one-sided electrode with reduced twisting for a secondary battery (title). Oh further teaches a base film (electrode distortion-preventing layer) on one surface of an electrode active material layer ([0037] fig. 2 ref. # 120, #130). The base film is made of a polymer ([0015]) that is selected from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), or a combination thereof ([0043]), which allows for the prevention of prevents distortion of the electrode, in turn improving the ease of manufacture (Oh, [0026]-[0027])
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 include the base film layer of Oh in the anode or cathode of Suo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it prevents distortion of the electrode.
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 07/24/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights