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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/684,419 filed on 02/16/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application Nos. JP2021-140821 filed on 08/31/2021 and PCT/JP2022/029600 filed on 08/02/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 is 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 6 and 11 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 6 and 11, claims 6 and 11 recite the limitation “the mixture layer contains greater than or equal to 2 mass % of a silicon compound”; however, the claims fail to specify the basis for the recited mass percentage. It is unclear whether the mass percentage is based on the total mass of the mixture layer, the mass of the negative electrode active material, the mass of one of the lower or upper layers, or some other basis and thus leaves the claims unclear.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US-20190305308-A1) and further in view of Ide (US-20100062340-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery (see e.g. "multilayer negative electrode" in paragraph [0013]), comprising:
a core (see e.g. "negative electrode current collector" in paragraph [0013]); and
a mixture layer provided on the core (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector... and a second negative electrode mixture layer formed on the first negative electrode mixture layer" in paragraph [0013]), wherein
the mixture layer contains graphite particles (see e.g. "natural graphite... artificial graphite" in paragraph [0013]), and has a lower layer that is disposed on a side of the core of the mixture layer (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector" in paragraph [0013]), and an upper layer that is disposed on a surface of the mixture layer (see e.g. "a second negative electrode mixture layer formed on the first negative electrode mixture layer" in paragraph [0013]),
a median diameter of the graphite particles contained in the lower layer is 5 µm to 30 µm (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer... containing natural graphite " in paragraph [0013] and "the natural graphite may have an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 μm to 30 μm" in paragraph [0039]),
a median diameter of the graphite particles contained in the upper layer is greater than or equal to 4 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm (see e.g. " second negative electrode mixture layer... containing artificial graphite" in paragraph [0013] and "The artificial graphite may have an average particle diameter (D50) of 8 to 30 μm" in paragraph [0052]).
Lee discloses average particle diameter D50 values measured by laser diffraction (see e.g. "The average particle diameter (D50)... is measured... [by] a commercially available laser diffraction particle diameter analyzer (for example Microtrac MT 3000)" in paragraph [0043]) , which overlap the claimed D50 ranges. Lee does not explicitly disclose that the D50 is on a volumetric basis; however, laser diffraction particle size distributions are conventionally reported on a volume basis. Therefore, the claimed “on a volumetric basis” limitation would be met by the disclosure of Lee.
Lee discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Lee is silent as to the thickness of each layer and thus does not disclose that an average thickness of the upper layer is less than or equal to 5% of an average thickness of the mixture layer.
Ide, however, in the same field of endeavor, multilayer negative electrodes for secondary batteries, discloses a negative electrode mixture layer (see e.g. "negative electrode having an active material layer containing a particulate active material.... The active material layer has its surface coated continuously or discontinuously with a surface layer." in paragraph [0005] of Ide) wherein the average thickness of the upper layer is ≈1.51% of an average thickness of the mixture layer (see e.g. "A slurry containing Si particles was applied to the current collector to a thickness of 15 μm to form a coating layer" in paragraph [0057] and "form a surface layer with an average thickness of 0.23 μm" in paragraph [0068] of Ide; the average thickness of the surface layer is 0.23 μm / (15 μm + 0.23 μm) = 0.23 μm / 15.23 μm ≈ 0.0151 * 100 ≈ 1.51%).
Ide discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ide further teaches that if the thickness of the upper layer is too large it is difficult for a nonaqueous electrolyte to reach the active material layer and thus overpotential in initial charge tends to increase, lithium dendrites tend to form and the nonaqueous electrolyte can decompose to increase irreversible capacity all of which are undesirable in the art (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Ide). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the average thickness of the upper layer of Lee et al. such that the average thickness of the upper layer is less than or equal to 5% of the average thickness of the mixture layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent overpotential in the initial charge, lithium dendrites from forming and the nonaqueous electrolyte decomposing as suggested by Ide. Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery (see e.g. "multilayer negative electrode" in paragraph [0013]), comprising:
a core (see e.g. "negative electrode current collector" in paragraph [0013]); and
a mixture layer provided on the core (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector... and a second negative electrode mixture layer formed on the first negative electrode mixture layer" in paragraph [0013]), wherein
the mixture layer contains graphite particles (see e.g. "natural graphite... artificial graphite" in paragraph [0013]), and has a lower layer that is disposed on a side of the core of the mixture layer (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer formed on one surface or both surfaces of the current collector" in paragraph [0013]), and an upper layer that is disposed on a surface of the mixture layer (see e.g. "a second negative electrode mixture layer formed on the first negative electrode mixture layer" in paragraph [0013]),
a BET specific surface area of the graphite particles contained in the lower layer is 2 m2/g to 8 m2/g (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer... containing natural graphite " in paragraph [0013] and " the natural graphite may have a specific surface area (BET) of 2 m2/g to 8 m2/g" in paragraph [0026]),
a BET specific surface area of the graphite particles contained in the upper layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 m2/g and less than or equal to 5.0 m2/g (see e.g. " second negative electrode mixture layer... containing artificial graphite" in paragraph [0013] and "the artificial graphite contained in the multilayered negative electrode of the present invention may be 0.5 m2/g to 5 m2/g, and more specifically 0.6 m2/g to 4 m2/g, in a range in which a specific surface area (BET) of the artificial graphite is smaller than that of the natural graphite" in paragraph [0045]).
Lee discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Lee is silent as to the thickness of each layer and thus does not disclose that an average thickness of the upper layer is less than or equal to 5% of an average thickness of the mixture layer.
Ide, however, in the same field of endeavor, multilayer negative electrodes for secondary batteries, discloses a negative electrode mixture layer (see e.g. "negative electrode having an active material layer containing a particulate active material.... The active material layer has its surface coated continuously or discontinuously with a surface layer." in paragraph [0005] of Ide) wherein the average thickness of the upper layer is ≈1.51% of an average thickness of the mixture layer (see e.g. "A slurry containing Si particles was applied to the current collector to a thickness of 15 μm to form a coating layer" in paragraph [0057] and "form a surface layer with an average thickness of 0.23 μm" in paragraph [0068] of Ide; the average thickness of the surface layer is 0.23 μm / (15 μm + 0.23 μm) = 0.23 μm / 15.23 μm ≈ 0.0151 * 100 ≈ 1.51%).
Ide discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ide further teaches that if the thickness of the upper layer is too large it is difficult for a nonaqueous electrolyte to reach the active material layer and thus overpotential in initial charge tends to increase, lithium dendrites tend to form and the nonaqueous electrolyte can decompose to increase irreversible capacity all of which are undesirable in the art (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Ide). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the average thickness of the upper layer of Lee et al. such that the average thickness of the upper layer is less than or equal to 5% of the average thickness of the mixture layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent overpotential in the initial charge, lithium dendrites from forming and the nonaqueous electrolyte decomposing as suggested by Ide.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Ide disclose the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee is silent as to the thickness of each layer and thus does not disclose that the average thickness of the upper layer is greater than or equal to 1% of the average thickness of the mixture layer.
Ide, however, discloses a negative electrode mixture layer (see e.g. "negative electrode having an active material layer containing a particulate active material.... The active material layer has its surface coated continuously or discontinuously with a surface layer." in paragraph [0005] of Ide) wherein the average thickness of the upper layer is ≈1.51% of an average thickness of the mixture layer (see e.g. "A slurry containing Si particles was applied to the current collector to a thickness of 15 μm to form a coating layer" in paragraph [0057] and "form a surface layer with an average thickness of 0.23 μm" in paragraph [0068] of Ide; the average thickness of the surface layer is 0.23 μm / (15 μm + 0.23 μm) = 0.23 μm / 15.23 μm ≈ 0.0151 * 100 ≈ 1.51%).
Ide discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ide further teaches that if the thickness of the upper layer is too large it is difficult for a nonaqueous electrolyte to reach the active material layer and thus overpotential in initial charge tends to increase, lithium dendrites tend to form and the nonaqueous electrolyte can decompose to increase irreversible capacity all of which are undesirable in the art (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Ide). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the average thickness of the upper layer of Lee et al. such that the average thickness of the upper layer is greater than or equal to 1% of the average thickness of the mixture layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent overpotential in the initial charge, lithium dendrites from forming and the nonaqueous electrolyte decomposing as suggested by Ide.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Ide disclose the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that a median diameter of the graphite particles contained in the lower layer is greater than or equal to 5 µm and less than or equal to 30 µm (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer... containing natural graphite " in paragraph [0013] and "the natural graphite may have an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 μm to 30 μm" in paragraph [0039]).
Lee discloses average particle diameter D50 values measured by laser diffraction (see e.g. "The average particle diameter (D50)... is measured... [by] a commercially available laser diffraction particle diameter analyzer (for example Microtrac MT 3000)" in paragraph [0043]) , which overlap the claimed D50 ranges. Lee does not explicitly disclose that the D50 is on a volumetric basis; however, laser diffraction particle size distributions are conventionally reported on a volume basis. Therefore, the claimed “on a volumetric basis” limitation would be met by the disclosure of Lee.
Lee discloses a range that overlap with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Ide discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that a BET specific surface area of the graphite particles contained in the lower layer is 2 m2/g to 8 m2/g (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer... containing natural graphite " in paragraph [0013] and " the natural graphite may have a specific surface area (BET) of 2 m2/g to 8 m2/g" in paragraph [0026]).
Lee discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Ide discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Lee does not disclose that the mixture layer contains greater than or equal to 2 mass% of a silicon compound.
Ide, however, discloses that the mixture layer contains greater than or equal to 2 mass% of a silicon compound (see e.g. "A suitable amount of the active material for these considerations is 5% to 80%, more suitably 10% to 70%, even more suitably 20% to 50%, by weight based on the whole negative electrode" in paragraph [0020] and "The active material is exemplified by silicon based materials" in paragraph [0014] of Ide).
Ide discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ide also teaches that silicon based materials are preferred in the mixture layer as they provide an improved capacity density per weight of a negative electrode (see e.g. paragraph [0014] of Ide). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mixture layer of Lee et al. such that it contains greater than or equal to 2 mass% of a silicon compound as taught by Ide in order to have an active material with an improved density per weight of the negative electrode as suggested by Ide.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Ide discloses a secondary battery (see e.g. "lithium secondary battery" in paragraph [0073] of Lee), comprising:
the negative electrode according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above);
a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0073] of Lee); and
an electrolyte (see e.g. " a non-aqueous electrolyte " in paragraph [0073] of Lee).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Ide disclose the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lee is silent as to the thickness of each layer and thus does not disclose that the average thickness of the upper layer is greater than or equal to 1% of the average thickness of the mixture layer.
Ide, however, discloses a negative electrode mixture layer (see e.g. "negative electrode having an active material layer containing a particulate active material.... The active material layer has its surface coated continuously or discontinuously with a surface layer." in paragraph [0005] of Ide) wherein the average thickness of the upper layer is ≈1.51% of an average thickness of the mixture layer (see e.g. "A slurry containing Si particles was applied to the current collector to a thickness of 15 μm to form a coating layer" in paragraph [0057] and "form a surface layer with an average thickness of 0.23 μm" in paragraph [0068] of Ide; the average thickness of the surface layer is 0.23 μm / (15 μm + 0.23 μm) = 0.23 μm / 15.23 μm ≈ 0.0151 * 100 ≈ 1.51%).
Ide discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ide further teaches that if the thickness of the upper layer is too large it is difficult for a nonaqueous electrolyte to reach the active material layer and thus overpotential in initial charge tends to increase, lithium dendrites tend to form and the nonaqueous electrolyte can decompose to increase irreversible capacity all of which are undesirable in the art (see e.g. paragraph [0003] of Ide). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the average thickness of the upper layer of Lee et al. such that the average thickness of the upper layer is greater than or equal to 1% of the average thickness of the mixture layer as taught by Ide in order to prevent overpotential in the initial charge, lithium dendrites from forming and the nonaqueous electrolyte decomposing as suggested by Ide.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Ide disclose the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that a median diameter of the graphite particles contained in the lower layer is greater than or equal to 5 µm and less than or equal to 30 µm (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer... containing natural graphite " in paragraph [0013] and "the natural graphite may have an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 μm to 30 μm" in paragraph [0039]).
Lee discloses average particle diameter D50 values measured by laser diffraction (see e.g. "The average particle diameter (D50)... is measured... [by] a commercially available laser diffraction particle diameter analyzer (for example Microtrac MT 3000)" in paragraph [0043]) , which overlap the claimed D50 ranges. Lee does not explicitly disclose that the D50 is on a volumetric basis; however, laser diffraction particle size distributions are conventionally reported on a volume basis. Therefore, the claimed “on a volumetric basis” limitation would be met by the disclosure of Lee.
Lee discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Ide discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lee further discloses that a BET specific surface area of the graphite particles contained in the lower layer is 2 m2/g to 8 m2/g (see e.g. "a first negative electrode mixture layer... containing natural graphite " in paragraph [0013] and " the natural graphite may have a specific surface area (BET) of 2 m2/g to 8 m2/g" in paragraph [0026]).
Lee discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Ide discloses the negative electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Lee does not disclose that the mixture layer contains greater than or equal to 2 mass% of a silicon compound.
Ide, however, discloses that the mixture layer contains greater than or equal to 2 mass% of a silicon compound (see e.g. "A suitable amount of the active material for these considerations is 5% to 80%, more suitably 10% to 70%, even more suitably 20% to 50%, by weight based on the whole negative electrode" in paragraph [0020] and "The active material is exemplified by silicon based materials" in paragraph [0014] of Ide).
Ide discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ide also teaches that silicon based materials are preferred in the mixture layer as they provide an improved capacity density per weight of a negative electrode (see e.g. paragraph [0014] of Ide). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mixture layer of Lee et al. such that it contains greater than or equal to 2 mass% of a silicon compound as taught by Ide in order to have an active material with an improved density per weight of the negative electrode as suggested by Ide.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Ide discloses a secondary battery (see e.g. "lithium secondary battery" in paragraph [0073] of Lee), comprising:
the negative electrode according to claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above);
a positive electrode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in paragraph [0073] of Lee); and
an electrolyte (see e.g. " a non-aqueous electrolyte " in paragraph [0073] of Lee).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Oura et al. (US-20220344659-A1)
Kurita et al. (US-20190363348-A1)
Otsuka et al. (US-20200295359-A1)
Ito et al. (US-20200328409-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights