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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrase “disclosed are” in line 3. The abstract is also objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “level(B)” should read as “level (B)” in order to correct the spelling of the claim.
In claim 12, line 2, “a negative electrode as claimed in claim 1” should read as “the negative electrode as claimed in claim 1” in order to more clearly and consistently refer to the negative electrode in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required. Suggested corrections are underlined for emphasis only.
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.
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 1-3, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115579455 with English Machine Translation) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0102709) (Li).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (title; abstract; [0024]), comprising: a current collector (4); a first negative active material layer (1+2) on a first side of the current collector (4); and a second negative active material layer (3) on a second side of the current collector (4) (see Fig. 1; [0034]-[0035]). Chen further discloses that the total areal density of the first negative active material layer (1+2) is greater than the areal density of the second negative active material layer (3) ([0021]-[0022]; [0065]-[0068]), suggesting the limitation that a loading level of the first negative active material layer is larger than a loading level of the second negative active material layer. Chen further discloses that the first negative active material layer (1+2) comprises a 1a layer (1) contacting the current collector (4) and a 1b layer (2) on one side of the 1a layer (1) (see Fig. 1; [0034]-[0035]), the 1a layer (1) comprises a 1a negative active material, the 1b layer (2) comprises a 1b negative active material ([0036]), and the second negative active material layer (3) is a single layer (see Fig. 1; [0034]-[0035]). Chen discloses that the 1a layer (1) and the 1b layer (2) can each independently comprise graphite ([0042]). However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose that the 1a negative active material comprises natural graphite, or a mixture of natural graphite and artificial graphite, and the 1b negative active material comprises artificial graphite.
However, this configuration is known in the art. For instance, Li teaches a similar negative electrode for a rechargeable battery (title), comprising a current collector (12) and a first negative active material layer (20) on a first side of the current collector (12) (see Fig. 3; [0083]), wherein the first negative active material layer (20) comprises a 1a layer (21) contacting the current collector (12) and a 1b layer (22) on one side of the 1a layer (21) (see Fig. 3; [0083]). Li further teaches that the 1a layer (21) comprises a negative active material including natural graphite, and the 1b layer (22) comprises a negative active material including artificial graphite ([0056]; [0071]). Li further teaches that configuring the active materials in this way can improve the performance of the battery ([0056]; [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the 1a negative active material and the 1b negative active material disclosed by Chen to respectively include natural graphite and artificial graphite, as taught by Li, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the performance of the battery.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Chen further discloses an example in which the areal density of the 1a layer (Chen: 1) is 7 mg/cm3, the areal density of the 1b layer (Chen: 2) is 7 mg/cm3, and the areal density of the second negative active material (Chen: 3) is 11 mg/cm3 (Chen: [0096]). Thus, given that each of the 1a layer (Chen: 1), 1b layer (Chen: 2), and second negative active material layer (Chen: 3) have the same mass ratio of graphite active material (Chen: [0080]; [0082]; [0084]), it is clear that the above values lead to a loading ratio between the loading level of the first negative active material layer (Chen: 1+2) and the loading level of the second negative active material layer (Chen: 3) equal to 1.27 ((7+7)/11), which falls within the claimed ranges of about 1.2 to about 2.2 and about 1.22 to about 2.17.
Regarding claims 7-9, modified Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Chen fails to explicitly disclose a porosity of the 1a layer (Chen: 1) or the 1b layer (Chen: 2). However, Li teaches that the 1a layer (Li: 21) can have a porosity of 23% to 35%, with a specific example in which the porosity is 24% (Li: [0072]), and the 1b layer (Li: 22) can have a porosity of 18% to 30%, with a specific example in which the porosity is 28% (Li: [0073]). Thus, Li includes the scenario in which the porosity of the 1a layer (Li: 21) is lower than the porosity of the 1b layer (Li: 22), suggesting the limitation that the 1a layer is a dense layer and the 1b layer is a porous layer. Furthermore, given the above values, Li teaches a ratio of the porosity of the 1b layer (Chen: 22) to the porosity of the 1a layer (Chen: 21) equal to 1.17 (28/24), which falls within the claimed ranges of about 1 to about 2 and about 1.15 to about 1.72. Li further teaches that configuring the porosity of the 1a layer (Chen: 21) and the 1b layer (Chen: 22) in this way enables the battery to have high energy density, cycle performance, and dynamic performance ([0072]-[0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured modified Chen to satisfy each of the limitations in claims 7-9, as taught by Li, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would enable the battery to have high energy density, cycle performance, and dynamic performance.
Regarding claim 10, modified Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Chen further discloses that the 1a layer (Chen: 1) can comprise an Si-based active material (Chen: [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chen discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (Chen: abstract; [0073]; [0085]-[0086]), comprising: a negative electrode as claimed in claim 1; a positive electrode; and a liquid electrolyte ([0073]-[0086]). While Chen fails to explicitly disclose a non-aqueous electrolyte, it is common in the art for liquid electrolytes in lithium batteries to be non-aqueous electrolytes. For instance, Li teaches a similar rechargeable lithium battery comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte (Li: [0095]), wherein the electrolyte can be a liquid, non-aqueous electrolyte ([0105]-[0108]). Li further teaches that this electrolyte is effective in conducting ions between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0095]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the electrolyte disclosed by modified Chen to be a non-aqueous electrolyte, as taught by Li, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that the non-aqueous electrolyte would be effective in conducting lithium ions between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115579455 with English Machine Translation) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0102709) (Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0340730) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Chen fails to explicitly disclose, however, a porosity of either the first negative active material layer (Chen: 1+2) or the second negative active material layer (Chen: 3).
Kim teaches a similar negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (title; abstract), comprising: a current collector (32); a first negative active material layer (34) on a first side of the current collector (32); and a second negative active material layer (36) on a second side of the current collector (32) (see Fig. 2B; [0071]), wherein a loading level of the first negative active material layer (34) is larger than a loading level of the second negative active material layer (36) ([0071]). Kim further teaches that the first negative active material layer (34) and the second negative active material layer (36) each comprise pores, wherein a ratio of a porosity of the first negative active material layer (34) to a porosity of the second negative active material layer (36) can be 1.1 to 2.3 ([0025]-[0026]; [0090]-[0094]), overlapping the claimed ranges of about 1 to about 2 and about 1 to about 1.6. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Kim further teaches that configuring the porosities of the first (34) and second (36) negative active material layers in this way can improve the lifespan of the battery ([0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second negative active material layers disclosed by modified Chen to have the claimed porosities, as suggested by Kim, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the lifespan of the battery.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115579455 with English Machine Translation) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0102709) (Li) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Govindaraj et al. (KR 20230081727 with English Machine Translation) (Govindaraj) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. Modified Chen fails to disclose, however, a specific amount of the Si-based active material in the 1a layer (Chen: 1).
Govindaraj teaches a similar negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (title), comprising a current collector and a first negative electrode mixture layer (corresponding to the claimed 1a layer) formed on the current collector and a second negative electrode mixture layer (corresponding to the claimed 1b layer) formed on the first negative electrode mixture layer (abstract; [0027]). Govindaraj further teaches that the first negative electrode mixture layer is composed of natural graphite and an Si-based material in an amount of 1 to 20 wt% ([0019]; [0053]; [0057]), encompassing the claimed range of about 1 wt% to about 7 wt%. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Govindaraj further teaches that configuring the first negative electrode mixture layer in this way leads to increased capacity, improved thermal stability, and enhanced rapid charging characteristics ([0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the amount of Si-based active material in the 1a layer disclosed by modified Chen to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Govindaraj, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would increase capacity, improve thermal stability, and enhance rapid charging characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights