DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2024 and 02/28/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the limitations “a compaction density of the first particle cluster after being compressed at a pressure of 5 tons” and “a compaction density of the second particle cluster after being compressed at the pressure of 5 tons” are both recited in each claim. It is not clear if the claim is directed to the particle clusters before or after compression. The compressed state is not positively recited for the first or second particle clusters, therefore, it is not clear if the claim is referring to the intermediate product before compression or a final compressed product rendering the claim indefinite. The as filed specification discloses how the compaction density of a negative electrode sheet increases the energy density of a secondary battery cell [0023]. The as filed specification also refers to the compaction density as being measured with a compaction density meter that is set to 5 tons [0034]. The recited step of being compressed at a pressure of 5 tons will be treated as a feature of the measurement method, and only the recited compaction density of the material will be considered to hold patentable weight.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the limitations “wherein when a volume percentage in the first particle cluster reaches 50%, a corresponding particle size value Dv50” and “when a volume percentage in the second particle cluster reaches 50%, a corresponding particle size value Dv50’” are both recited in each claim. It is not clear what this limitation is referring to, and the as filed specification does not sufficiently clarify the meaning [0029]. The as filled specification indicated that regarding Dv50 of the first particle cluster, the “volume percentage in the first particle cluster reaches 50%” can refer to (1) “a median of particle sizes ranges from 13 µm to 20 µm”, (2) “a ratio of a sum of volumes of particles each having a particle size greater than 13 µm and less than 20 µm to the total volume of the first particle cluster is 50%”, or (3) “a ratio of a sum of volumes of particles each having a particle size less than 13 µm to the total volume of the first particle cluster is 50%” [0029]. The same definition is given for Dv50’ of the second particle cluster with the range of 5 µm to 12 µm [0030].
The standard definition for Dv50 as used in the art is the volume median particle size distribution, which is the particle size where 50% of the sample by volume is made up of particle smaller than this diameter and 50% of the sample by volume is made up of particles larger than this diameter.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted Dv50 and Dv50’ to be the median particle size for first particle cluster and second particle cluster respectively. The median particle sizes Dv50 and Dv50’ will each be considered as one value in the given ranges of 13 µm ≤ Dv50 ≤ 20 µm and 5 µm ≤ Dv50’ ≤ 12 µm respectively.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the limitation “wherein Dv90 represents a corresponding particle size value when the volume percentage in the first particle cluster reaches 90%, Dv10 represents a corresponding particle size value when the volume percentage in the first particle cluster reaches 10%, and Dv50 represents a corresponding particle size value when the volume percentage in the first particle cluster reaches 50%” is recited in both claims. These descriptions of Dv90, Dv10, and Dv50 are unclear because the language in the claims and specification appears to indicate that the volume percentage of the first particle clusters is changing i.e., first particle cluster reaches 90% [0046], first particle cluster reaches 10% [0045], and first particle cluster reaches 50% [0047]. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted Dv90 to be the particle size at which point 90% of the particles by volume are smaller than Dv90 and 10% of the of the particles by volume are larger than Dv90; Dv10 to be the particle size at which point 10% of the particles by volume are smaller than Dv10 and 90% of the of the particles by volume are larger than Dv10; and Dv50 to be the median particle size for first particle cluster.
Regarding claim 6 and 14, the limitation “wherein Dv90’ represents a corresponding particle size value when the volume percentage in the second particle cluster reaches 90%, Dv10’ represents a corresponding particle size value when the volume percentage in the second particle cluster reaches 10%, and Dv50’ represents a corresponding particle size value when the volume percentage in the second particle cluster reaches 50%” is recited in both claims. These descriptions of Dv90, Dv10, and Dv50 are unclear because the language in the claims and specification appear to indicate that the volume percentage of the second particle clusters is changing i. e., second particle cluster reaches 90% [0050], second particle cluster reaches 10% [0051], and second particle cluster reaches 50% [0049]. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted Dv90 to be the particle size at which point 90% of the particles by volume are smaller than Dv90 and 10% of the of the particles by volume are larger than Dv90; Dv10 to be the particle size at which point 10% of the particles by volume are smaller than Dv10 and 90% of the of the particles by volume are larger than Dv10; and Dv50 to be the median particle size for second particle cluster.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, the claims are rejected based on their dependence on claims 1, 9, and 17.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. al (US 20230231134 and WO 2023082157). It is noted that while the WO 2023082157 reference has an earlier publication date, hereinafter the US 20230231134 reference will be used when referring to You.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11-12, 17, and 19-20, You teaches a battery pack that may include a battery box and a plurality of battery modules which includes one or more secondary batteries (battery cells) [0113, 0109, 0079]. The secondary batteries are arranged along a length direction of the battery module or in any other manner and may be fastened through fasteners, so the secondary batteries must be electrically connected in series or in parallel [0110]. The battery modules containing the secondary batteries are arranged in the battery box which corresponds to the plurality of battery cells being received in the box [0113, Figure 6]. The secondary battery includes a positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet), a negative electrode plate (negative electrode sheet), an electrolyte, and a separator [0080]. The separator is disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate which corresponds to the claim of the separator being located at one side of the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet being disposed at one side of the separator away from the positive electrode sheet [0080]. You also teaches the infiltration of the electrolyte into the electrode assembly wherein the electrode assembly contains a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator [0108]. Therefore, the positive electrode plate, the negative electrode plate, and the separator must necessarily be at least partially immersed in the electrolyte.
Next, You teaches that the negative electrode plate includes a negative electrode current collector [0006], where a first negative electrode material layer and a second negative electrode material layer are disposed on the negative electrode current collector, and the first negative electrode material layer contains a first negative electrode active material [0007]. The combination of the a first negative electrode material layer and the second negative electrode material layer correspond to the claimed negative electrode material layer, and the first negative electrode active material corresponds to the claimed first active material. You then teaches that the first negative electrode active material includes particles of artificial graphite A (first particle cluster) and particles of artificial graphite B (second particle cluster) [0038].
You teach that the median particle size by volume Dv50 (Dv50) for A is 14 µm -20 µm [0009], and the median particle size by volume Dv50 (Dv50’) for B is 12 µm -16 µm [0010]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the limitations “a compaction density of the first particle cluster after being compressed at a pressure of 5 tons” and “a compaction density of the second particle cluster after being compressed at the pressure of 5 tons” are method limitations that do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless the applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because in the prior art You teaches the compacted density (compaction density) of A is 1.5 g/cm3-1.8 g/cm3 which corresponds to P1, and the compacted density of B is 1.6 g/cm3-1.85 g/cm3 which corresponds to P2 [0009-0010]. Since the compacted densities and the median particle size in the prior art correspond to the physical characteristics of the claimed particle clusters, the teachings of You obviate the claimed product, and the product by process limitation of being compressed at a pressure of 5 tons does not hold patentable weight. With the above listed compacted densities of A and B, You teaches that the ratio P1/P2 is 0.81 - 1.125. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, You teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17 as described above. As recited in claims 2, 10, and 18. the limitations “wherein a specific surface area of the first particle cluster before being compressed”, “a specific surface area of the first particle cluster after being compressed”, “a specific surface area of the second particle cluster before being compressed”, and “a specific surface area of the second particle cluster after being compressed” are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the methods produce a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless the applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113.
The form of the intermediate structures, which are the first particle cluster before compression, S1, and the second particle cluster before compression, S1’, have no bearing on the final structures which are the first particle cluster after compression, S2, and the second particle cluster after compression, S2’. Only the structure imparted to the final products is considered to have patentable weight. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because in the prior art You discloses the particle clusters from claims 1, 9 and 17 as discussed above which have the same compacted density and median particle size. You discloses a material with first and second particle clusters that obviates the claimed product, and the recitation of the specific surface area “before being compressed” is an intermediate that has no bearing on the final structure of the product. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the claimed limitations of the particle cluster specific surface areas before compression and their relationships to the particle cluster specific surface areas after compression are not considered further limiting.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, You teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. You further teaches that the artificial graphite A (first particle cluster) has a particle size distribution that satisfies 0.8≤(Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50≤1.7 [0009]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, You teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. You further teaches that the artificial graphite B (second particle cluster) has a particle size distribution that satisfies 0.5≤(Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50≤1.5 [0010]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, You teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. As recited in claims 7 and 15, the limitations “wherein a specific surface area of the first particle cluster before being compressed” and “a specific surface area of the first particle cluster after being compressed”, are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless the applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because in the prior art You discloses the particle clusters from claims 1 and 9 as discussed above which have the same compacted density and median particle size. You discloses a material with first particle clusters that obviates the claimed product, and the recitation of the specific surface area “before being compressed” is an intermediate that has no bearing on the final structure of the product. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the claimed limitations of the ratio of the first particle cluster specific surface area before compression to the specific surface area of the first particle cluster after compression are not considered further limiting.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, You teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. As recited in claims 8 and 16, the limitations “wherein a specific surface area of the second particle cluster before being compressed” and “a specific surface area of the second particle cluster after being compressed” are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless the applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because in the prior art You discloses the particle clusters from claims 1 and 9 as discussed above which have the same compacted density and median particle size. You discloses a material with second particle clusters that obviates the claimed product, and the recitation of the specific surface area “before being compressed” is an intermediate that has no bearing on the final structure of the product. See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the claimed limitations of the ratio of the second particle cluster specific surface area before compression to the specific surface area of the second particle cluster after compression are not considered further limiting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291.
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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
