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 .
Amendments to the specification, drawings, and claims, filed 15 May 2024, have been entered in the above identified application
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/696,759, hereinafter ‘759, in view of Morikawa (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393148) and Park (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/040586. For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020040586-A1.
Regarding claim 1, ‘759 claims a negative electrode comprising: a negative electrode current collector; a first negative electrode active material layer on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the first negative electrode active material layer comprises a first carbon-containing active material, a first silicon-containing active material, and a first binder; and a second negative electrode active material layer on the first negative electrode active material layer, wherein the second negative electrode active material layer comprises a second carbon-containing active material, a second silicon-containing active material, and a second binder (claim 1),
wherein the first silicon-containing active material comprises a first silicon-containing compound represented by SiOx, wherein 0<x<2 (claim 10) and the second silicon-containing active material comprises a second silicon-containing compound represented by SiOy, wherein 0<v<2 (claim 11), wherein a ratio of a weight percentage of the first binder based on a weight of the first negative electrode active material layer to a weight percentage of the second binder based on a weight of the second negative electrode active material layer is in a range of 0.5:1 to 9:1 (claim 2).
‘759 does not explicitly claim a first metal doped in the first silicon-containing compound and a second metal doped in the second silicon-containing compound,
Morikawa teaches a negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title) that includes a negative electrode active material layer made of a first layer (the second negative electrode active material layer of Morikawa) and second layer (the first negative electrode active material layer of Morikawa), each layer containing silicon oxide doped with at least one metal (abstract). The metals are selected from Mg, Ca, Be, Sr, Ba, and Ra ([0031]). Inclusion of the doping metals to the silicon oxide allows for improvement in charge-discharge capacity and the initial charge and discharge efficiency ([0005]).
Morikawa further teaches that the first layer (second layer of Morikawa) contains a greater amount of the doping metal than the second layer (first layer of Morikawa, abstract), which prevents concentration of reactivity only in the vicinity of the surface of the negative electrode active material layer when the rapid charge-discharge cycle is performed, in turn improving cycle life and capacity retention rate after rapid charge-discharge cycles ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the metal doped on the first and second silicon-containing active materials as a first and second metal, with more metal in the first layer than in the second layer, as taught by Morikawa, in the negative electrode active material layers of the claimed invention of ‘759. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the effect of improving the cycle life of the secondary battery and the effect of improving the capacity retention rate after the rapid charge-discharge cycle, while also preventing concentration of reactivity in the surface of the negative electrode.
‘759 does not explicitly claim a weight ratio of the first metal based on a total weight of the first silicon-containing compound and the first metal is greater than a weight ratio of the second metal based on a total weight of the second silicon-containing compound and the second metal.
Morikawa teaches modifying the amount of metal in the first and second layers by changing the amount of the silicon-containing compound, as all of the silicon-containing compound is doped with the metal ([0072]), therefore changing the amount of the silicon-containing compound is the method used to change the amount of the metal (see Tables 1-3). Therefore, changing the amount of the metal in the first and second negative electrode active material layers also requires changing the amount of the silicon-containing compound, in turn restraining the possible characteristics of the negative electrode active material layers by limiting composition possibilities.
Park teaches a silicon-based composite for an anode in a lithium secondary battery (title), the silicon-containing compound being doped with a metal including Mg, Ca, Al, Na, and Ti (abstract). Park further teaches the amount of the doping metal in the silicon-containing compound can range to 0.1 wt% to 30 wt% of the silicon-containing compound ([0042]), which allows for a high capacity and more effectively increases the initial efficiency of the silicon-based composite ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a larger of the doping metal in the silicon-containing compound in the first layer than in the second layer, as previously taught by Morikawa, in the negative electrode active material layers of modified ‘759, by modifying the weight percentage of the doping metal in the silicon-containing compound within the range taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to allow for sufficient improvements in capacity, output, and anode expansion suppression, while also having a high capacity and increased initial efficiency, while not limiting the amount of the silicon-containing compound that can be in the claimed invention of ‘759.
By increasing the weight percentage of the doping metal in the first silicon-containing compound in the first negative electrode active material layer to an amount greater than the weight percentage of the doping metal in the second silicon-containing compound in the second negative electrode active material layer, a weight ratio of the first metal based on a total weight of the first silicon-containing compound and the first metal is greater than a weight ratio of the second metal based on a total weight of the second silicon-containing compound and the second metal.
Regarding claim 2, in the above imported inclusion of first and second metals doping the first and second silicon-containing active materials, a weight percentage of the first metal and second metal are in a range of 0.1 wt% to 30 wt% based on the total weight of the first and second silicon-containing compounds and the first and second metals, respectively (Park, [0042]). The ranges overlaps with the claimed range of 10 wt% to 25 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, ‘759 claims the first metal and the second metal each independently comprise at least one metal selected from the group consisting of lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), and aluminum (Al) (claims 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 4, ‘759 claims the first carbon-containing active material and the first silicon-containing active material are present in an amount of 90 wt% to 99 wt% in the first negative electrode active material layer, and a weight ratio of the first carbon-containing active material to the first silicon-containing active material is in a range of 83:17 to 99:1 (claim 8). These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of the first carbon-containing active material and the first silicon-containing active material are present in an amount of 90 wt% to 99 wt% in the first negative electrode active material layer, and a weight ratio of the first carbon-containing active material to the first silicon-containing active material is in a range of 85:15 to 99:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 5, the second carbon-containing active material and the second silicon-containing active material are present in an amount of 90 wt% to 99 wt% in the second negative electrode active material layer, and a weight ratio of the second carbon-containing active material to the second silicon-containing active material is in a range of 83:17 to 99:1 (claim 9). These ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of the second carbon-containing active material and the second silicon-containing active material are present in an amount of 90 wt% to 99 wt% in the second negative electrode active material layer, and a weight ratio of the second carbon-containing active material to the second silicon-containing active material is in a range of 85:15 to 99:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, ‘759 claims the first binder is present in the first negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.5% to 15% by weight (claim 3). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 15% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, ‘759 claims the second binder is present in the second negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 0.5% to 15% by weight (claim 4). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 15% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, ‘759 claims a total weight of the first binder and the second binder is in a range of 0.5 wt% to 15 wt% based on a total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer (claim 5). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1% to 15% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, ‘759 claims a ratio of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer is in a range of 1:0.5 to 1:2 (claim 7)
Regarding claim 12, ‘759 claims a sum of a loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer and a loading amount of the second negative electrode active material layer is 4 mAh/cm2 to 8 mAh/cm2 (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, ‘759 claims a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode of claim 1; a positive electrode facing the negative electrode; a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; and an electrolyte injected in the secondary battery (claim 14).
Regarding claim 14, ‘759 claims the positive electrode comprises: a positive electrode current collector; and a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector, wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium-cobalt containing oxide (claim 15)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/696,759, hereinafter ‘759, in view of Morikawa (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393148) and Park (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/040586, further in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0365883), hereinafter Lee ‘883. For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020040586-A1.
‘759, Morikawa, and Park are relied upon as described above.
‘759 claims the first binder comprises a styrene butadiene rubber (claim 1).
‘759 does not explicitly claim the second binder comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride, styrene butadiene rubber, acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, acrylic rubber, butyl rubber, fluoro rubber, polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylic acid, polyethylene glycol, polyacrylonitrile, and polyacrylamide, nor that the second binder is specifically styrene butadiene rubber.
Lee ‘883 teaches a lithium secondary battery (title) including an anode with two layers, each with a binder (abstract). Lee further teaches using styrene butadiene rubber as the first and second binder ([0084]). This allows for improved adhesion of the first and second negative electrode active material layers ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the second binder to comprise styrene butadiene rubber, as taught by Lee ‘883, in the claimed invention of ‘759. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the improved adhesion of the second negative electrode active material layer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation “a ratio of a weight percentage of the first binder to a weight of the first negative electrode active material layer is 0.5:1 to 9:1, and a weight percentage of the second binder to a weight of the second negative electrode active material layer is 0.5:1 to 9:1” in lines 23-25 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this limitation is saying that the binder is 0.5 weight percent to 9 weight percent of the respective negative electrode active material layer, as seems represented in Applicant’s specification, or if the binder is 33 weight percent to 90 weight percent of the respective negative electrode active material layer, which is what appears to be claimed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be understood to mean that the first binder makes up 0.5 weight percent to 9 weight percent of the first negative electrode active material layer, and that the second binder makes up 0.5 weight percent to 9 weight percent of the second negative electrode active material layer.
Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0365883), hereinafter Lee ‘883, in view of Morikawa (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393148) and Park (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/040586. For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020040586-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lee ‘883 teaches a negative electrode (anode) including a negative electrode current collector (anode current collector) and a first negative electrode active material layer (first anode active material layer) on the negative electrode current collector (abstract). The first negative electrode active material layer contains a first carbon-containing active material (graphite-based active material), a first silicon-containing active material (silicon-based active material), and a first binder (abstract). The negative electrode further contains a second negative electrode active material layer on the first negative electrode active material layer, wherein the second negative electrode active material layer contains a second carbon-containing active material (graphite-based active material), a second silicon-containing active material (silicon-based active material), and a second binder (abstract).
The first silicon-containing active material comprises a first silicon-containing compound represented by SiOx, wherein 0<x<2, and the second silicon-containing active material comprises a second silicon-containing compound represented by SiOy, wherein 0<y<2 ([0022], the silicon-based active material may include SiOx, 0<x<2).
Further, a ratio of a weight percentage of the first binder based on a weight of the first negative electrode active material layer to a weight percentage of the second binder based on a weight of the second negative electrode active material layer is in a range of 1:1 to 5:1 ([0060] and [0072], the content of each binder in their respective layers is 1% to 5%), which lies within the claimed range of 0.9:1 to 5.5:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Lee’ 883 does not explicitly teach the first and second silicon-containing active materials contain a first and second metal doped in the respective silicon-containing active materials.
Morikawa teaches a negative electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title) that includes a negative electrode active material layer made of a first layer (the second negative electrode active material layer of Morikawa) and second layer (the first negative electrode active material layer of Morikawa), each layer containing silicon oxide doped with at least one metal (abstract). The metals are selected from Mg, Ca, Be, Sr, Ba, and Ra ([0031]). Inclusion of the doping metals to the silicon oxide allows for improvement in charge-discharge capacity and the initial charge and discharge efficiency ([0005]).
Morikawa further teaches that the first layer (second layer of Morikawa) contains a greater amount of the doping metal than the second layer (first layer of Morikawa, abstract), which prevents concentration of reactivity only in the vicinity of the surface of the negative electrode active material layer when the rapid charge-discharge cycle is performed, in turn improving cycle life and capacity retention rate after rapid charge-discharge cycles ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the metal doped on the first and second silicon-containing active materials as a first and second metal, with more metal in the first layer than in the second layer, as taught by Morikawa, in the negative electrode active material layers of Lee ‘883. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the effect of improving the cycle life of the secondary battery and the effect of improving the capacity retention rate after the rapid charge-discharge cycle, while also preventing concentration of reactivity in the surface of the negative electrode.
Modified Lee ‘883 does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of the first metal based on a total weight of the first silicon-containing compound and the first metal is greater than a weight ratio of the second metal based on a total weight of the second silicon-containing compound and the second metal.
Morikawa teaches modifying the amount of metal in the first and second layers by changing the amount of the silicon-containing compound, as all of the silicon-containing compound is doped with the metal ([0072]), therefore changing the amount of the silicon-containing compound is the method used to change the amount of the metal (see Tables 1-3). Lee ‘883 teaches that decreasing the amount of the silicon-containing compound too much results in insufficient improvements in capacity and output of the electrode and increasing the content of the silicon-containing compound too much results in insufficient suppression of anode expansion (Lee ‘883, [0053]). Therefore, it would be beneficial to be able to increase and decrease the amount of the doped metal in the first and second layers of modified Lee ‘883 without changing the amount of the silicon-containing compound.
Park teaches a silicon-based composite for an anode in a lithium secondary battery (title), the silicon-containing compound being doped with a metal including Mg, Ca, Al, Na, and Ti (abstract). Park further teaches the amount of the doping metal in the silicon-containing compound can range to 0.1 wt% to 30 wt% of the silicon-containing compound ([0042]), which allows for a high capacity and more effectively increases the initial efficiency of the silicon-based composite ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a larger of the doping metal in the silicon-containing compound in the first layer than in the second layer, as previously taught by Morikawa, in the negative electrode active material layers of modified Lee ‘883, by modifying the weight percentage of the doping metal in the silicon-containing compound within the range taught by Park. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to be able to stay within the optimal range of the amount of the silicon-containing compound in the first and second negative electrode active material layers, allowing for sufficient improvements in capacity, output, and anode expansion suppression, while also having a high capacity and increased initial efficiency.
By increasing the weight percentage of the doping metal in the first silicon-containing compound in the first negative electrode active material layer to an amount greater than the weight percentage of the doping metal in the second silicon-containing compound in the second negative electrode active material layer, a weight ratio of the first metal based on a total weight of the first silicon-containing compound and the first metal is greater than a weight ratio of the second metal based on a total weight of the second silicon-containing compound and the second metal.
Regarding claim 2, in the above imported inclusion of first and second metals doping the first and second silicon-containing active materials, a weight percentage of the first metal and second metal are in a range of 0.1 wt% to 30 wt% based on the total weight of the first and second silicon-containing compounds and the first and second metals, respectively (Park, [0042]). The ranges overlaps with the claimed range of 10 wt% to 25 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 3, in the above imported inclusion of the first and second doping metal of Morikawa to Lee ‘883 the doping metals are selected from magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) (Morikawa, [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee ‘883 further teaches the first carbon-containing active material and the first silicon-containing active material are present in an amount of 90 wt% to 98 wt% in the first negative electrode active material layer ([0060], the first anode active material). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 90 wt% to 99 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Lee ‘883 further teaches a weight ratio of the first carbon-containing active material to the first silicon-containing active material is in a range of 90.5:9.5 to 98:2 (abstract, the first anode active material and the second anode active material includes a silicon-based active material and a graphite-based material and contains 2 to 9.5 parts by weight of silicon with respect to the 100 part by weight of the graphite-based active material, which results in the above mentioned ratio) This overlaps with the claimed range of 85:15 to 99:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Lee ‘883 further teaches the second carbon-containing active material and the second silicon-containing active material are present in an amount of 90 wt% to 98 wt% in the first negative electrode active material layer ([0072], the second anode active material). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 90 wt% to 99 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Lee ‘883 further teaches a weight ratio of the second carbon-containing active material to the second silicon-containing active material is in a range of 90.5:9.5 to 98:2 (abstract, the first anode active material and the second anode active material includes a silicon-based active material and a graphite-based material and contains 2 to 9.5 parts by weight of silicon with respect to the 100 part by weight of the graphite-based active material, which results in the above mentioned ratio) This overlaps with the claimed range of 85:15 to 99:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Lee ‘883 further teaches the first binder is present in an amount of 1 wt% to 5 wt% in the first negative electrode active material layer ([0060]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 wt% to 15 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Lee ‘883 further teaches the second binder is present in an amount of 1 wt% to 5 wt% in the second negative electrode active material layer ([0072]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 wt% to 15 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Lee ‘883 further teaches a total weight of the first binder and the second binder is in a range of 1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer ([0060] and [0072], as each binder is 1 wt% to 5 wt% of their respective layers, they will be 1% to 5% of the total weight of the first and second layers). This overlaps with the claimed range of 1 wt% to 15 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lee ‘883 teaches the first binder and the second binder comprise a styrene butadiene rubber ([0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee ‘883 does not explicitly teach a ratio of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer is in a range of 1:0.5 to 1:2.
Morikawa further teaches a ratio of a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer (second layer of Morikawa) to a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer (first layer of Morikawa) is in a range of 1:0.42 to 1:4 ([0091], the ratio of the second layer of Morikawa to the entire layer ranges from 20% to 70%, resulting in ratios of the second layer of Morikawa to the first layer of Morikawa ranging from 2:8 to 7:3, which simplify to the above stated ratios). This range of thicknesses allow for capacity retention rates after 500 cycles and the rapid charge-discharge cycle are both being 90% or more ([0091]). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 1:2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the ratio of thickness of the first and second negative electrode active material layers of Morikawa in the negative electrode of modified Lee ‘883. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these sizes for the long-term capacity and rapid charge-discharge cycle capability retention.
Regarding claim 13, Lee ‘883 teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode of claim 1, a positive electrode, a separator present between the negative electrode and positive electrode, and an electrolyte ([0017] and fig. 3 ref. #50, #60, and #70).
The limitation “an electrolyte injected in the secondary battery” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because ‘004 claims the identical battery structure.
Regarding claim 14¸ Lee ‘883 further teaches the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector with a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector ([0056], and fig. 3 ref. #52, #54). The positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material including a lithium-cobalt-containing oxide ([0059], lithium cobalt-based composite oxide).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0365883), hereinafter Lee ‘883, in view of Morikawa (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0393148) and Park (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2020/040586), further in view of Lee (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0205064), hereinafter Lee ‘064. For prior art discussion see English translations for WO-2020040586-A1.
Lee ‘883, Morikawa, and Park are relied upon as described above.
Modified Lee ‘883 does not explicitly teach a sum of a loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer and a loading amount of the second negative electrode active material layer is 4 mAh/cm2 to 8 mAh/cm2.
Lee ‘064 teaches a method for preparing an electrode for a lithium secondary battery (title). Lee ‘064 further teaches the negative electrode includes a first negative electrode active material layer and a second negative electrode active material layer ([0019]-[0020]). Lee ‘064 further teaches a sum of a loading amount of the first negative electrode active material layer and a loading amount of the second negative electrode active material layer is 3 mAh/cm2 to 6 mAh/cm2, which overlaps with the claimed range of 4 mAh/cm2 to 8 mAh/cm2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). The range of 3 mAh/cm2 to 6 mAh/cm2, as taught by Lee ‘064, allows for the benefit of using a first binder in the first negative electrode active material layer and second binder in the negative electrode active material layer to be most beneficial ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the sum loading amount, as taught by Lee ‘064, in the negative electrode of modified Lee ‘883. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion for the increased benefit of using the first and second binders.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 08/31/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights