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.
Status of Application
Claims 2-5 are preliminarily amended, submitted on 3/19/2024. Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
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 3 and 4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mixture layer” in Ln3, which is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Since the base claim 1 recites “ a mixture layer” in Ln2, and also “the mixture layer includes a first mixture layer, and a second mixture layer” in Ln3, it is unclear regarding which mixture layer does the recitation refer to from the base claim 1, a mixture layer of Ln2, a first mixture layer or a second mixture layer of Ln3. For examination purposes, the recitation “the mixture layer” in claim 3 Ln 3 is interpreted as referring to a mixture layer recited in Ln2 of the claim 1.
Same reason for rejection and claim interpretation apply to claim 4 for the recitation “the mixture layer” in Ln3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20140080837 A, see machine translation for citation), in view of Ahn (US 20170125788 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a negative electrode ([0038]) for a secondary battery ([0001]), comprising: a core (copper current collector 110, [0045] and FIG. 2)); and a mixture layer (120 and 130, FIG. 2) formed on the core, wherein the mixture layer includes a first mixture layer (120 second coating layer, [0053] [0043] and FIG. 2), and a second mixture layer (130 first coating layer, [0053] [0041] and FIG. 2) disposed on the first mixture layer.
Lee further discloses the first coating layer having a first porosity or pore size and the size of the first negative electrode active material particles is larger than that of the second negative electrode active material particles, and the first porosity or the pore size is higher or larger than the second porosity or the pore size ([0018]) and as shown in FIG. 2 while the pore size of respective layer 130 and 120 seem homogenous in each layer, but the pore sizes of the two layer are different, in that the pore size of layer 130 is larger than that of layer 120, which anticipates the claimed “the first mixture layer and the second mixture layer having different pore diameter distributions from each other, and when a pore diameter corresponding to a maximum peak in the pore diameter distribution in the first mixture layer is defined as a pore diameter A, and a pore diameter corresponding to a maximum peak in the pore diameter distribution in the second mixture layer is defined as a pore diameter B”, because the homogeneous pore size of 130 layer corresponds to a pore diameter B of a maximum peak in the pore diameter distribution in the second mixture layer, and the homogeneous pore size of 120 layer corresponds to a pore diameter A of a maximum peak in the pore diameter distribution in the first mixture layer in the claim. Further, since Lee’s the first pore size of layer 130 is larger than the second pore size of layer 120 ([0018] and FIG. 2), Lee at least discloses the pore diameter A is smaller than the pore diameter B, thus, the ratio (A/B) is smaller than 1.
While Lee desires to solve the problem of poor penetration of the electrolyte into the inside of the electrode, and that the electrode reaction rate in the inside of the electrode is significantly lower than that of the outside electrode, resulting in low output characteristics ([0009]), Lee does not specifically mention a ratio (A/B) of the pore diameter A to the pore diameter B is larger than 0.01, except for showing in FIG. 2 that the ratio (A/B) seems being larger than 0.01. However, there is no indication that the FIG. 2 is drawn to scale. But Lee necessarily discloses a ratio (A/B) range of greater than 0 and smaller than 1, thus at least encompassing the claimed range of “larger than 0.01 and smaller than 1”
Ahn teaches, in order to improve ion mobility into the electrode and charge characteristics and cycle life of a lithium ion battery ([0011-0012]), an anode including an electrode current collector and a multi-layered active material layer including a first anode active material layer 23 and a second anode active material layer 24 formed on the electrode current collector ([0021] and FIG.2); and a pore diameter and/or the porosity of the second anode active material layer 24 may be relatively larger or higher than those of the first anode active material layer 23 ([0032] and FIG. 2), which translates to a ratio (A/B) being smaller than 1 in light of the fact that an average pore diameter represents the mathematical mean of all pore sizes while the maximum peak in pore diameter distribution represents the most frequently occurring pore size representing the dominant pore size. {Examiner notes: the average pore diameter of Ahn is considered as being very close to the value of the maximum peak of pore diameter in the pore diameter distribution, based on a most likely symmetric pore diameter distribution scenario in view of the preparation method of the first anode active material and the second active material: containing 97.3 parts by weigh of active material (artificial graphite) and 0.7 parts by weight of a conductive agent (Super-P), 1 part of a thickener and 1 part of a binder under an applied pressure of 12.3 Mpa ([0061-0062]), absent evidence to the contrary for secondary consideration.}
Ahn further teaches the diameter of the pores between the active materials of the first anode active material layer may be in a range of 0.4 µm to 3 µm, and the diameter of the pores between the active materials of the second anode active material layer may be in a range of 0.5 µm to 3.5 µm ([0045]), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a ratio (A/B) of Ahn would necessarily be larger than 0.01, because the pore diameter within the range (0.4-3 µm) of the first anode active material layer 23 is necessarily more than 0.01 times of the pore diameter within the range (0.5-3.5 µm) of the second anode active material layer 24.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the pore diameters of the first mixture layer (pore diameter A) and the pore diameters of the second mixture layer (pore diameter B) of Lee taught by Ahn, thus arriving at the claimed limitation of “a ratio (A/B) of the pore diameter A to the pore diameter B is larger than 0.01” without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in solving the problem of poor penetration of the electrolyte into the inside of the electrode as desired by Lee, and in improving ion mobility into the electrode and charge characteristics and cycle life of a secondary battery.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose the ratio (A/B) of the pore diameter A to the pore diameter B is 0.02 to 0.8.
Since as established above in claim 1, Ahn teaches the diameter of the pores between the active materials of the first anode active material layer in a range of 0.4 µm to 3 µm, and the diameter of the pores between the active materials of the second anode active material layer in a range of 0.5 µm to 3.5 µm ([0045]); and a ratio (A/B) being smaller than 1, a skilled artisan would reasonable envisage the ratio (A/B) of Ahn should be within the range of 0.11 to 1, overlapping the range of 0.02 to 0.8 as claimed “the ratio (A/B) of the pore diameter A to the pore diameter B is 0.02 to 0.8”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to an ordinary skilled artisan to have modified the pore diameters of the first mixture layer (pore diameter A) and the pore diameters of the second mixture layer (pore diameter B) of Lee, as taught by Ahn, thus arriving at a ratio (A/B) value that falls within the overlapping portion (0.11-0.8) between the Ahn taught range (0.11 to 1) and the claimed range (0.02 to 0.8), satisfying the claimed “the ratio (A/B) of the pore diameter A to the pore diameter B is 0.02 to 0.8” without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the goal of improving ion mobility into the electrode and charge characteristics and cycle life of a secondary battery.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee ([0041] and [0043] uses graphite as the negative electrode active material, not silicon as claimed.
Modified Lee further discloses the first and second negative electrode active material particles are Silicon (Si) among other alternative choices ([0022]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the mixture layer with silicon selected from the finite alternative choices ([0022]), and thus arriving at the claimed “the mixture layer contains a silicon material as a negative electrode active material”.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses a positive electrode (cathode, [0038]); and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte solution, [0024]).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20140080837 A, see machine translation for citation), in view of Ahn (US 20170125788 A1), as applied to claim 1, further as evidence by Casas (Journal of Power Sources 208 (2012) 74-85).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses the first and second negative electrode active material particles are carbon nanotube among other alternative choices ([0022]), which renders obvious the mixture layer contains carbon nanotubes as an active material.
Further, since it is well-known that carbon nanotubes have dual functions as both an anode active material and a conductive agent due to being highly conductive in enhancing electronic transport in anode materials, as evidence by Casas (Abstract), the carbon nanotube in modified Lee is considered as a conductive agent as well, thus the claim limitation is met.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/21/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights