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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 04/04/2024 and 12/17/2025 were received and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 07/08/2024 were received and have been approved by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: NEGATIVE ELECTRODE PLATE COMPRISING METLAL HYDRIDE AND SILICON ACTIVE MATERIAL, SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND ELECTRICAL APPARATUS.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 appears to lack the word “for” when describing the length of time the first voltage of the discharge treatment needs to be performed. 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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the carbon-based negative electrode active material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends upon claim 1, however a carbon-based negative electrode active material is not introduced in the claim set until claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (U.S. 20160172669; presented in IDS submitted 04/04/2024 as CN 107004843).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-8, Young discloses a negative electrode plate (anode) ([0003]), comprising:
a negative electrode current collector ([0090]); and
a negative electrode film layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0090]), the negative electrode film layer comprising a negative electrode active material ([0089]), a metal hydride (MgH2; [abstract]; thus reading on claim 2), a conductive agent and a binder ([0090]), wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-based negative electrode active material (silicon-carbon-based active material or natural graphite [0089]; thus reading on claims 5 and 7-8).
With respect to claim 9, Young discloses a secondary battery (rechargeable lithium ion batteries) ([0087]), comprising:
a positive electrode plate (cathode) ([0087]);
a separator ([0087]);
an electrolyte ([0087]); and
the negative electrode plate of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yushin et al. (U.S. 20190198837).
With respect to claims 3-4, Young discloses a negative electrode film layer with a metal hydride and silicon-based active material (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the content of the metal hydride.
Yushin discloses a negative electrode comprising silicon-based active materials and a metal hydride ([0045]) and teaches metal hydride is present in an amount of 20 to 98 wt% ([0045]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 35%, while teaching the preferred amount of silicon is 2-80% ([0045]), thus the ratio of silicon-based negative electrode active material to metal hydride overlaps the claimed ratio of 1: (0.5-3.5) (claim 4). Yushin further teaches this allows for higher volumetric capacity for the anode ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the metal hydride and silicon-based active materials disclosed by Young were in the content ranges taught by Yushin in order to provide a higher volumetric capacity anode.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It is noted that claim 3 relies on mass percentage, not weight percentage. However, mass is a known function of weight different in its exclusion of the impact of gravity. Since gravity is a constant function, the weight percentage and mass percentage of content in an electrode or active material would be the same.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kawasaki et al. (U.S. 20150125740).
With respect to claim 6, Young discloses a silicon-carbon-based negative electrode active material for a negative electrode plate (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the mass ratio of the silicon-based negative electrode active material to the carbon-based negative electrode active material.
Kawasaki discloses an anode active material comprising a silicon-based active material (silicon metal a) and a carbon-based active material (carbon material c) ([abstract]), and teaches the content of the silicon is 5-95 mass% ([0030]), while the content of carbon is 2-50 mass% ([0036]), thus when the content for silicon is 5 mass% and the content of carbon is 50 mass%, the ratio would be 1:10, thus falling in the claimed range of 1: (4-10). Kawasaki further teaches that this ensures low resistance and high output power for the negative electrode ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the silicon-based negative electrode active material to the carbon-based negative electrode active material disclosed by Young were in the contents taught by Kawasaki in order to ensure low resistance and high output power for the negative electrode.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Park et al. (U.S. 20210167369).
With respect to claim 10, Young discloses a silicon-based negative electrode active material (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose a particle surface of the silicon-based negative electrode active material contains a metal or metal lithium alloy and lithium hydride.
Park discloses a silicon-based negative electrode active material (silicon-based core) ([00046]) and teaches that a particle surface of the silicon-based negative electrode active material contains (via doping) a sodium (Na) and lithium hydride ([0052]). Park further teaches that this helps improve the electrical conductivity of the negative electrode active material ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include sodium and lithium hydride surface as taught by Park on the silicon-based negative electrode active material disclosed by Young in order to improve he electrical conductivity of the negative electrode active material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ogino (U.S. 20120242292).
With respect to claim 11, Young discloses the secondary battery according to claim 9 (see above rejection of claim 9), but does not disclose a method for preparing said secondary battery.
Ogino discloses a secondary battery (power storage device) ([abstract]) and teaches a method for preparing the battery includes an aging treatment including charge/discharge at a constant voltage or current ([0015]).Ogino further teaches that this treatment allows for not only carrier ions in the active material layer which are likely to migrate (e.g., lithium ions) but also carrier ions in the active material layer which are less likely to migrate can be movable ([0095]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to apply the aging treatment taught by Ogino to the battery disclosed by Young in order to allow for not only carrier ions in the active material layer which are likely to migrate (e.g., lithium ions) but also carrier ions in the active material layer which are less likely to migrate can be movable.
It is noted by the examiner that the prior art does not teach the specific voltages and time stamps for the aging (discharge) treatment. However, using specific voltages, currents, amounts of time, etc. to perform a pretreatment process is well known in the art. Further, there are only a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, that can be applied in an aging treatment. As described in the applicant’s specification, the specific voltages and times used are dependent upon the active material, and cycling ability of the active material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try performing an aging treatment at the claimed specifications in order to arrive at the best outcome for the active materials chosen (MPEP 2143.I.E.).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yushin et al. (Yushin II; U.S. 20220190389).
With respect to claims 12-14, Young discloses a battery according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9), but does not disclose an electrical apparatus comprising the battery, or a battery pack comprising a battery module comprising the battery.
Yushin II discloses a battery comprising an anode with silicon-based active material and metal hydrides ([0047]) and teaches its use in a module (claim 12), pack (claim 13), and electronic devices (claim 14; vehicles, bicycles, scooters, etc.) ([0040]). Yushin II further teaches that these batteries are then smaller, lighter, safer, simper, less expensive, provide more energy, provide longer cycle life, provide longer calendar life, provide better operation at high temperatures and/or other important features ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the battery disclosed by Young could be used within a module, pack, and electronic device as taught by Yushin II in order to provide a battery that is smaller, lighter, safer, simper, less expensive, provide more energy, provide longer cycle life, provide longer calendar life, provide better operation at high temperatures and/or other important features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights