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 .
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piao et al (US 2019/0088947 A1) in view of Choi et al (US 2021/0167398).
Regarding claim 1, Piao discloses a negative electrode ([0002]), comprising:
A negative electrode current collector ([0043]); and
A negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector ([0011] and [0043]).
Piao also discloses that the negative electrode active material layer comprises first active material particles and second active material particles ([0011]). The examiner notes that the first active material disclosed by Piao corresponds to the claimed second active material, while the second active material disclosed by Piao corresponds to the claimed first active material. For the sake of clarity and to more closely match the claim language, Piao’s first active material will henceforth be referred to as Piao’s second active material and vice versa.
Piao additionally teaches that the average particle size (D50) of the first active material particles and the second active material particles can be between 5-12 µm and 10-35 µm, respectively ([0027] and [0034]). This corresponds to an average particle size ratio range of second active material particles to first active material particles of 2.0 to 2.9, which is within the claimed range.
Piao further discloses that the second active material particles are composed of artificial graphite and that the second active material particles can be in the form of a secondary particle that is formed from the agglomeration of a plurality of primary particles ([0020]-[0024]). It is also taught by Piao that the artificial graphite particles that make up the second active material can be uncoated, as any coating layers are optional ([0026]).
Piao even further discloses that the first active material particles can be comprised of artificial graphite ([0028]). Piao does not, however, expressly disclose that an amorphous carbon coating layer can be positioned on a surface of the first active material particles.
Choi, drawn also to battery art ([0023]), similarly discloses a secondary battery containing a negative electrode that comprises a negative electrode active material layer formed on a current collector ([0023]). Choi further discloses that the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material that is comprised of artificial graphite particles ([0034]). Choi even further discloses that there can be a carbon coating layer formed on the artificial graphite particles ([0044]) and that the carbon coating layer can include an amorphous carbon ([0046]). Choi also teaches that the addition of a carbon coating layer onto the artificial graphite particles can improve the hardness of the active material, resulting in its improved structural stability ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first active material particles of Piao by forming an amorphous carbon coating layer onto the surface of the particles as taught by Choi. Doing so would have resulted in the artificial graphite active material having increased structural stability due to the improved hardness imparted onto it by the presence of an amorphous carbon coating layer.
Regarding claim 2, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Piao disclosed that the average particle size (D50) of the second active material particles and the first active material particles can be between 10-35 µm and 5-12 µm, respectively ([0027] and [0034]). This corresponds to an average particle size ratio range of second active material particles to first active material particles of 2.0 to 2.9. This 2.0 to 2.9 ratio is within the narrower ratio of 2.o to 3.5 that is presented in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Piao discloses that the average particle size (D50) of the first active material particles can be between 5-12 µm ([0034]), which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. Choi further discloses that the carbon coating layer may be included in an amount of 2-6% by weight with respect to 100% by weight of the negative electrode active material. In view of the modification of Piao with Choi as discussed with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to provide the amorphous carbon coating layer in the amount taught by Choi. Choi’s disclosed interval of 2-6% by weight falls with the claimed range of 1-10% by weight.
Regarding claim 5, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Piao disclosed that the second active material consists of artificial graphite particles ([0020]-[0024]) and that the artificial graphite particles can be uncoated ([0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Piao disclosed that the average particle size (D50) of the second active material particles can be between 10-35 µm ([0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps with one of the prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Piao renders obvious having second active material particles that have an average particle size within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, the artificial graphite particles of the second active material in Piao can both be uncoated and exist in the form of a secondary particle that is created from the agglomeration of a plurality of primary particles. Piao further discloses that the primary particles that form the secondary particles in the second active material can have an average particle size (D50) between 5-20 µm ([0022] – [0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps with one of the prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Piao renders obvious having primary particles in the secondary active material that have an average particle size within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Piao discloses that the negative electrode active material layer comprises a first active material and a second active material. Piao further discloses that the negative electrode active material layer can include the first active material at 20-90% by weight based on the total weight of the first and second active materials ([0036]). This corresponds to a weight ratio of first active material to second active material of 20:80 to 90:10, which overlaps with the claimed range. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps with one of the prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, Piao renders obvious having a first and second active material ratio within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. While Piao does not expressly disclose that the overall negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) between 12-20 µm, Piao does disclose that the second active material can have an average particle size of 10-35 µm ([0027]) and that the first active material may have an average particle size of 5-12 µm ([0034]). Both of the average particle size ranges that are disclosed by Piao overlap with the claimed range. Since the overall active material comprises a mixture of the first active material particles and the second active material particles, it is reasonable to infer that the average particle size of the overall active material would fall within the claimed range (MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding claim 10, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. While Piao does not expressly disclose that the overall negative electrode active material has a BET specific surface area ranging from 0.1-3.0 m2/g, Piao does disclose that the second active material can have a specific surface area of 1.3-1.5 m2/g ([0025]) and that the first active material may have a specific surface area of 1.4-1.6 m2/g ([0035]). Piao also discloses that the specific surface area can be measured using a BET method ([0025]). Since the specific surface areas of the first active material and the second active material both fall within the claimed range, it is reasonable to infer that the overall active material would also have a specific surface area within the claimed interval (MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding claim 11, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. Piao does not explicitly disclose that the negative electrode active material has a crystallite size La (100) in an a-axis direction from 200-300 nm and a crystallite size Lc (002) in a c-axis direction from 50-100 nm based upon an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis.
Choi does, however, teaches that its negative electrode active material can have a crystallite size La of 270-290 nm and a crystallite size Lc of 70-80 nm ([0061]), which both fall within the claimed ranges. Choi further teaches that these crystallite size ranges are preferable because they facilitate lithium-ion diffusion and improve rapid charging performance ([0061]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the negative electrode active material of Piao to have the Lc and La crystallite sizes taught by Choi in order to facilitate lithium-ion diffusion in the active material, thereby enhancing the rapid charging performance of the secondary battery.
Regarding claim 12, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. Piao does not expressly disclose that the negative electrode active material has a tap density ranging from 1.00-1.20 g/cc.
Choi does, however, disclose that its negative electrode material can have a tap density of 0.84-1.20 g/cc ([0060]), which overlaps with the claimed range [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Choi also teaches staying within the disclosed tap density range is preferable as it minimizes the diffusion path of lithium-ions in the active material, which results in improved rapid charging performance of the battery ([0060]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the negative electrode active material of Piao to have the tap density values taught by Choi. Doing so would have resulted in a secondary battery with enhanced rapid charging performance due to the minimized diffusion paths for the lithium-ions in the active material.
Regarding claim 14, Piao in view of Choi discloses a secondary battery with a negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. Piao further discloses that the secondary battery additionally comprises a positive electrode ([0046]) with a separator interposed between the negative and positive electrodes ([0046]). Piao even further discloses that the secondary battery includes an electrolyte ([0046]). The present claim is drawn to a product, rather than a method, and thus the examiner notes that the method with which the electrolyte is introduced is thus only germane to the patentability to the extent that it provides a structural a difference, which it does not appear to have. The foregoing does not appear to represent a structural difference and the structural components appear to already be present/disclosed in the applied art. Nonetheless, the examiner provides further proof below for the sake of expediting prosecution.
While Piao doesn’t use the exact language of having the electrolyte injected into the secondary battery, Choi does explicitly teach that an electrolyte can be injected into a secondary battery ([0078]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the electrolyte into the secondary battery of Piao using the method disclosed by Choi. Both references disclose secondary batteries containing an electrolyte and Choi expressly teaches that an electrolyte can be injected into the secondary battery during the manufacturing process. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Piao and Choi would have resulted in the predicable outcome of Piao’s secondary battery incorporating its electrolyte through injection [MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piao et al (US 2019/0088947 A1) in view of Choi et al (US 2021/0167398) and Kim et al (US 2020/0277705 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Piao in view of Choi discloses the negative electrode as discussed above in claim 1. Neither Piao or Choi expressly teaches that the negative electrode active material has a roll pressing density ranging from 1.5-2.0 g/cc.
Kim, drawn also to battery art (abstract), likewise discloses a negative electrode in a secondary battery ([0008]). Kim further discloses that the density of the negative electrode after roll pressing can be 1.50-1.60 g/cc ([0081]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the teachings of Kim to have ensured that the roll pressing density in Piao’s negative electrode was within numerical values presented by Kim. Both references disclose negative electrode compositions used in a secondary battery and Kim expressly teaches that a negative electrode with a roll pressing density within the claimed range is suitable for application in the battery art. Accordingly, combining the teachings of Piao and Kim would have resulted in the predicable outcome of forming a useful battery that is capable of carrying out it’s known function of storing and supplying power [MPEP 2143 (I)(A)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.T.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights