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.
Claim(s) 1 to 3, 5 to 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. WO 2019/187537 A1 (US 2021/0013496 A1 is used as an English equivalent), and further in view of Kobayashi et al (US 20150044535), Kobayashi et al (US 20120082892), WO 2020162504 A1 and Wakizaka et al (US 20120189913).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuzuki teaches:
Referring to FIG. 1, a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10 that includes a positive electrode 11, the negative electrode 12, and the separator 13 [0012]. The negative electrode 12 has a negative electrode mix layer 41 [0022] that includes a first layer 42 and a second layer 43. The first layer 42 contains a first carbon-based active material A with a strength of 3 MPa or less and a silicon-based active material containing Si. The second layer 43 contains a second carbon-based active material B with a strength of 5 MPa or more. In Table 1 the different compressive strength used for each example is included, wherein for the second layer values of 27MPa and 44 MPa are included.
Tsuziku is silent about the thickness of the negative electrode current collector, about the carbon-based material A with a range of fracture strength in the range of 5 to 15 MPa and having a 1%-proof strength of greater than or equal to 300 MPa and less than or equal to 700 MPa. Also is silent about the negative electrode active material has a discharge capacity of greater than or equal to 400 mAh/g and less than or equal to 750 mAh/g.
In the same field of endeavor, negative electrode, WO’ 2504 teaches a negative electrode active material that includes graphite particles P with breaking strength of 25 MPa to 55 MPa and other graphite particles with fracture strength of 5MPa to 25MPa [P21-P22]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the graphite particles of the active material of Tsuzki to the one taught by WO’ 2504 with the range claimed since both references concern the design of negative electrode active material with carbon-based in combination with a metal alloying with lithium such as Si for a secondary battery and WO’ 2504 recognized that the desired mechanical properties for electrode performance can be achieved by controlling the breaking strength.
In the same field of endeavor, secondary battery, Kobayashi’ 4535 teaches a thickness of the negative electrode current collector 11a from 1 to 50 μm, more preferably from 5 to 20 μm [0072]. Further teaches that, the "proof stress" indicates
σ
∈
(1%) measured by the total elongation method of JIS Z 2241 [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to follow the teaches of Kobayashi’ 4535 for a thickness in the range of greater or equal than 4 μm and less than or equal to 12 μm for a current collector and integrated the same to the embodiment of Tsuziku to maintain a sufficiently resistant to support the electrode and obtain a desired mechanical strength, electrical resistance, weight/volume and an electrode processing capacity.
In the same field of endeavor, secondary battery, Kobayashi’2892 teaches the proof stress of the negative electrode current collector is restricted to 300 MPa or greater [0080]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to integrated and modify the current collector for the embodiment of Tsuziku to have a range of a 1%-proof strength of greater than or equal to 300 MPa and less than or equal to 700 MPa because according to the teaches by Kobayashi’ 2892 the reason of this range restriction is because the deformation of the negative electrode current collector such as bending and creases can be prevented, and as a result, short circuiting in the battery can be prevented, even if stress occurs because of the volume change of the negative electrode active material in association with charging and discharging [0080]. A range of 300-750 MPa seeks a balance between ductility and resistance.
In the same field of endeavor, anode for a lithium-ion, Wakizaka teaches a negative electrode active material having a carbon active material. As graphite are mainly employed, whereby a discharge capacity of about 350 to 360 mAh/g, which is close to the theoretical capacity for graphite of 372 mAh/g. The term "alloy active material" used in the invention refers to an active material that includes in its structure an element into which lithium can be intercalated, and has a theoretical electrical capacitance based on weight when lithium is intercalated thereinto of 500 mAh/g or more (although the upper limit of the theoretical electrical capacitance is not particularly limited, for example, the upper limit may be set at 5,000 mAh/g or less). Specific examples of materials for use may include lithium metal, elemental metals that forms a lithium alloy, and alloys thereof, and oxides, sulfides, nitrides, silicides, carbides, phosphides and the like thereof [0004 and 0024]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to select a range of the discharge capacity following the teaches from Wakizaka to the embodiments of Tsuziku because in a battery, increasing the specific capacity allows the store of more load using the same mass of active material without adding more weight and improving the energy density of the cell.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuzuki doesn’t teach:
The discharge capacity CA (mAh/g) of the negative electrode active material, the thickness CT (pm) of the negative electrode current collector, and the 1%-proof strength CM (N/mm2) of the negative electrode current collector satisfy a relationship of CA/(CM x CT) < 0.3.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi’4535 teaches that when a value obtained by multiplying a proof stress of the negative electrode collector and the thickness thereof is represented by A, and a capacity to be charged per unit area of the negative electrode is represented by B, A≥0.075xB-3 is satisfied [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to select a discharge capacity, a thickness of the current collector and a proof strength that satisfied this range because according to the teaches from Kobayashi’4535 in Table 1 and FIGS 3 to 5, when a negative electrode satisfies this relation, the deformation of the lithium secondary battery during charging and discharging can be suppressed [0081].
Regarding claim 3, Tsuzuki teaches:
Each of the carbon-based active materials A and B is a negative electrode active material formed of a carbon material and contains graphite as a primary component (e.g. natural graphite such as flake graphite, vein graphite, and amorphous graphite and artificial graphite such as massive artificial graphite and graphitized mesophase carbon microbeads) [0023].
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Tsuzuki teaches:
The silicon-based active material is Si or a compound containing Si and is preferably a silicon oxide denoted by
S
i
O
X
(0.5≤x≤1.6). The silicon oxide denoted by
S
i
O
X
has a structure in which Si fine particles are dispersed in an amorphous
S
i
O
X
matrix. Alternatively, the silicon-based active material may be a compound denoted by
L
i
2
S
i
O
(
2
+
y
)
(0<y<2) in which Si fine particles are dispersed in a lithium silicate phase [0027]. A coating layer as a conductive composed of a material having higher conductivity than Si or the compound containing Si be disposed on the particle surfaces of the silicon-based active material [0028].
Regarding claim 9, Tsuzuki teaches:
The content of the silicon-based active material in the first layer 42 is, for example, 4% to 20% by mass and preferably 6% to 12% by mass relative to the total mass of the first layer 42 [0029].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. WO 2019/187537 A1 (US 2021/0013496 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Kobayashi et al (US 20150044535), Kobayashi et al (US 20120082892) and Wakizaka et al (US 20120189913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2009105046.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuzuki teaches:
Carbon-based material A and carbon-based material B [0023].
WO’ 2504 suggest that the graphite particles P (carbon-based material A) when it is 15% by mass or more, the effect is more remarkable. However, combination is silent about the claimed range of the first carbon-based material A.
In the same field of endeavor, negative electrode of a lithium-ion battery, JP’ 5046 teaches soft graphite used as the active material or it can be another carbonaceous material [0012 and 0016]. Also teaches that soft graphite is used as a conductive agent in the active material and as a volume change absorber during charge and discharge by being mixed in the same weight and volume ratio as the metal-carbon composite active material in the form of particles. Are suitable. Therefore, the soft graphite can be 30% or more and 70% or less based on the weight of the entire electrode active material layer [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to select and adjust the amount of the first carbon-based material of Tsuzuki in view of the teaches from WO’ 2504 and JP’ 5046. Tsuzuki identifies soft graphite, for example, flake graphite or amorphous graphite [0023] as a suitable carbon-based material for the first and/or second layer 41 and 42, while WO’ 2504 suggest a 15% by mass or more and JP’ 5046 teaches incorporating soft graphite particles in an amount of 30%-70% based on the total weight of the active material. Selecting the carbon-based material A to constitute 20 – 40 % of the total amount of the carbon-based material A and the carbon-based material B would therefore have been a routine optimization to obtain the desired electrode characteristics, rather than a patentable departure from the teaches of Tsuzuki.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. WO 2019/187537 A1 (US 2021/0013496 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Kobayashi et al (US 20150044535), Kobayashi et al (US 20120082892) and Wakizaka et al (US 20120189913) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of WO 2019225534 A1.
Regarding claim 7 and 8, combination doesn’t teach:
The ion-conductive phase includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of alkali metal elements and Group II elements or the ion-conductive phase includes an element M, and the element M is at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Al, Zr, Nb, Ta, V, La, Y, Ti, P, Bi, Zn, Sn, Pb, Sb, Co, Er, F, and W.
In the same field of endeavor, negative electrode materials, WO’ 5534 teaches a silicon-based material for a negative electrode active material in combination of carbonaceous particles. Further teaches that the silicon oxide particles may be doper with other elements. The element to be doped can be selected from any element as long as it is an element other than Group 18 of the periodic table. It can be selected from elements such as alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, Al, Ga, Ge, N, P, As, and Se up to the fourth period of the periodic table… is preferable, Mg, Ca, and Li [P73 and P74]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to identified and include an ion-conductive phase from the group consisting of alkali metal elements and Group II elements and included an element M from the group mention above for the content of silicon-based active material of Tsuzuki because according to WO’ 5534 this elements and group are capable of doping the silicon oxide particles in order to improve the lithium ion [P74].
6. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. WO 2019/187537 A1 (US 2021/0013496 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Kobayashi et al (US 20150044535), Kobayashi et al (US 20120082892) and Wakizaka et al (US 20120189913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2009289313.
Regarding claim 10, Tsuzuki doesn’t teach:
The negative electrode current collector is copper having a crystal grain size of greater than or equal to 0.2 pm and less than or equal to 2 pm.
Kobayashi’ 4535 teaches the negative electrode collector 11a may be formed, for example, of foil formed from a metal, such as copper [0032]. Combination is silent about the crystal grain size.
In the same field of endeavor, electrolytic metal foil, JP’ 9313 teaches a copper foil layer with an average value of the grain size of the copper crystal grains is in the range of 0.5 μm to 3.0 μm, and the difference between the average value and the maximum value of the grain size of the crystal grains is 2.0 μm or less [abs]. The copper foil can be use in the negative electrode current collector following the teaches of Obata et al (US 20130295407) [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to been motivated to select the grain size taught by JP’ 9313 because is a known microstructural parameter for controlling the strength and ductility of a copper current collector, and selecting an appropriate grain size would have been a routine optimization.
7. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki et al. WO 2019/187537 A1 (US 2021/0013496 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Kobayashi et al (US 20150044535), Kobayashi et al (US 20120082892) and Wakizaka et al (US 20120189913) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MOON et al (US 20110287322).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuzuki doesn’t teach:
A negative electrode current collector has a breakage elongation of greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 9%.
Kobayashi’ 4535 teaches a negative current collector 11a with a yield elongation rate of 0.24% or more, 0.26% or more, and even more preferably 0.29% or more.
In the same field of endeavor, rechargeable battery, Moon teaches a negative current collector including a copper foil having elongation of about 5% to about 10% [abs]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to increment the yield elongation rate of Kobayashi’ 4535 to be on the range teaches by Moon to obtain a better ductility and resistance to breakage of the current collector during the manufacturing and operation of the battery on a known parameter. Kobayshi and Moon teaches a current collector made of copper for a secondary battery.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICOLAS J ROSA BERRIOS at telephone number (571)270-1856.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ Nicolas Rosa / Examiner / Art Unit 1741 /
08/19/2026
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights