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 § 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “the particle sizes of the second graphite particle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a particle size of the second graphite particle and claim 7 recites a D50 particle size of the second graphite particle and a D90 particle size of the second graphite particle. Therefore, it is unclear which particle sizes the applicant is referring to by “the graphite particles” as it could be any combination of the particle size variations recited in claims 1 and 7. The instant specification discloses removing particles from the second graphite particle size distribution below 7 µm (instant specification, [0047]). Thus, For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 8 to require a minimum particle size of greater than 7 µm for the second graphite particle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN 111628141 A), wherein an English language machine translation of Song is used and cited herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Song teaches a lithium ion battery, a positive pole piece (corresponding to the claimed positive electrode sheet), a negative pole piece (corresponding to the claimed negative electrode sheet), a separator, and an electrolyte (Song, [0046]-[0047]);
the negative electrode pole piece includes:
a negative electrode current collector, a first negative electrode active material layer arranged on a surface of the negative electrode current collector, a first negative electrode active material included in the first negative electrode active material layer which includes a first graphite and a first silicon material (corresponding to the claimed silicon particles) (Song, [0011]-[0012]);
a second negative electrode active material layer disposed on a surface of the first negative electrode active material layer, a second negative electrode active material included in the second negative electrode active material layer which includes a second graphite (Song, [00011], [0013]).
Song does not expressly disclose the second graphite having a particle size larger than the first graphite.
However, Song teaches the first graphite has a median particle size D50 of 10 – 20 µm and the second graphite has a median particle size D50 of 10 – 20 µm (Song, [0027]), which allows for the particle size of the second graphite to be smaller than the particle size of the first graphite and thus overlaps with the claimed graphite particle size relationship. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches blending the first graphite with the first silicon before forming the first negative electrode active material layer (Song, [0043], [0045]), that the first silicon is included at 3 to 9 wt % of the first negative electrode active material layer (Song, [0015]), and that the first negative electrode active material (including the first silicon and the first graphite) is included at 90 to 98.99 wt % of the negative electrode active material layer (Song, [0012], [0031]-[0032]). Thus, the second graphite may be included at 81 to 95.99 wt % based on the first negative electrode active material layer mass (as calculated by the examiner) which is an ~8 to ~32 times excess (as calculated by the examiner) of first graphite relative to the first silicon content in the first negative electrode active material layer. One skilled in the art would recognize that blending such an excess of the first graphite with the first silicon would result in the first silicon being surrounded/enveloped by the first graphite (corresponding to the claimed outer wall of the silicon particles is wrapped with the first graphite particles) in the first negative electrode active material layer.
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches the first and second graphite may be the same and may be artificial graphite or natural graphite (corresponding to the claimed first and second graphite particles derived from the same type of graphite) (Song, [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Song teaches the mass proportion of the first silicon material in the first negative electrode active material layer ranges from 3 to 9 wt % (Song, [0015]), which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Song teaches the first negative electrode active material layer includes a first conductive agent, a first binder, and a first dispersant (corresponding to the claimed first thickener as the instant specification provides lithium carboxymethyl cellulose as an example of the first thickener, instant specification [0043], and Song provides lithium carboxymethyl cellulose as an example of the first dispersant, Song [0039]) (Song, [0029]);
a mass percentage of the first negative electrode active material, which includes silicon and graphite as described above, is 90 to 98.99 wt % (Song, [0031]-[0032]), which meets the claimed range for a mass ratio of a mixed material of silicon and first graphite particles.
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches a mass percentage of the first conductive agent (0.5 to 3 wt %), of the first binder (0.5 to 5 wt %), and the first dispersant (0.5 to 3 wt %) (Song, [0031] – [0032]) all of which meet the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 12, Song teaches the second negative electrode active material layer includes a second conductive agent, a second adhesive (corresponding to the claimed second binder, also referred to as a second binder, Song [0035]), and a second dispersant (corresponding to the claimed second thickener as described above Song provides an example second dispersing agent, Song [0039], consistent with the instant specification’s second thickener, instant specification [0043]) (Song, [0029]);
Song further discloses the second negative electrode active material includes a second graphite, a second silicon material, the second silicon material is 1 – 3 wt% of the mass of the second negative electrode active material layer, and the second negative electrode active material is 90 to 98.99 wt % of the second negative electrode active material (Song, [0013], [0015], [0034]-[0035]). Thus, the second graphite is 87 – 97.99 wt % (corresponding to the claimed mass ratio range of the second graphite particles) of the second negative electrode active material layer (as calculated by the examiner), which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Song teaches a mass percentage of the second conductive agent (0.5 to 3 wt %), of the second binder (0.5 to 5 wt %), and the second dispersant (0.5 to 3 wt %) (Song, [0034] – [0035]) all of which meet the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 14, Song teaches the ratio of the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to the thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer may be 1:9 to 9:1 (Song, [0017]), which meets the claimed range.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (US 2025/0029998), hereinafter “Feng”.
Regarding claim 2, Song does not teach the particle size of the first graphite is smaller than the particle size of the first silicon.
However, Song teaches the median particle size D50 of the first silicon (corresponding to the claimed particle size of the silicon particle) is 1 – 10 µm (Song, [0022]). Feng teaches a lithium-ion battery with natural graphite as the negative electrode material (Feng, [0004], [0015]), also referred to as negative active material, wherein the negative active material has a particle diameter size distribution Dv50 (corresponding to the claimed particle size of the first graphite) of 3 – 18 µm and when the particle size distribution of the negative active material is within the given range, a relatively low internal resistance for ion intercalation is ensured, thereby reducing the precipitation of active metal ions and side reactions between the metal ions and electrolyte and ensuring relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Feng’s Dv50 range to the first graphite of Song in order to provide a battery with more stable active metal ion interactions and a relatively high cycle and kinetic performance (Feng, [0016]). The resulting battery of Song modified by Feng would include a first silicon material with a D50 range of 1 – 10 µm and a first graphite with a Dv50 range of 3 – 18 µm, which allows for the first silicon material particle size to be larger than the first graphite particle size as claimed, and thus overlaps with the claimed limitation. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2024/0021819), hereinafter “Chen”, and Liu et al. (US 2024/0243272), hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claims 4, Song does not teach the claimed ratio range.
However, Chen teaches a silicon oxide (corresponding to the claimed silicon particles as the instant disclosure states the silicon particles may include a silicon oxide material, instant specification [0032]) negative electrode material for lithium ion batteries (Chen, [0003]) having a particle size distribution including D90 < 25 µm and D50 of 1 – 10 µm. Controlling the particle size of the primary particles of the silicon oxygen material within a suitable range avoids a larger specific surface area and oxidation problems caused by excessively small particle size, resulting in a decrease in capacity (Chen, [0259]).
Further, Liu teaches an electrochemical device, which may be a lithium-ion battery, and which includes a negative electrode (Liu, [0037], [0059]), wherein the negative electrode includes a negative active material which may include graphite, and which has a Dv90 of 5 – 20 µm. Adjusting the Dv90 of the negative active material to within the specified range helps to form a synergistic effect between the negative active material, the positive active material, and the electrolyte, and helps improve the cycle and storage performance of the electrochemical device (Liu, [0043]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the D90 of Chen to Song’s first silicon material and to add Liu’s D90 range to Song’s first graphite in order to provide a battery that avoids decreased capacity due to oxidation problems of the silicon material (Chen, [0259]) and to promote a synergistic effect between the components of the battery and to improve the cycle and storage performance thereof (Liu, [0043]).
The battery according to Song modified by Chen and Liu suggests a battery having a ratio of the first silicon D90 (corresponding to the claimed D90 particle size of the silicon particle) to the first graphite D90 (corresponding to the claimed D90 particle size of the first graphite particle) of < 0.8 which overlaps with the claimed range of the ratio of D90 particle size of the silicon particle to D90 particle size of the graphite particle, as calculated by the examiner. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen, Feng, and Liu.
Regarding claims 6, Song teaches a median particle size D50 of the first silicon is 1 – 10 µm (Song, [0022]) but does not disclose the claimed first graphite D50 range and is silent to D90 ranges for both materials.
However, Chen teaches a lithium ion battery having silicon oxide (corresponding to the claimed silicon particles as described regarding claim 4 above) as the negative electrode material (Chen, [0003]) wherein the silicon oxide has a D90 < 25 µm and D50 of 1 – 10 µm. Controlling the particle size of the primary particles of the silicon oxygen material within a suitable range avoids a larger specific surface area and oxidation problems caused by excessively small particle size, resulting in a decrease in capacity (Chen, [0259]).
Further, Feng teaches a lithium-ion battery with natural graphite as the negative active material (Feng, [0004], [0015]), and the negative active material has a particle diameter size distribution Dv50 (corresponding to the claimed D50) of 3 – 18 µm. When the particle size distribution of the negative active material is within the given range, a relatively low internal resistance for ion intercalation is ensured, thereby reducing the precipitation of metal ions and side reactions between the metal ions and electrolyte and ensuring relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]).
Liu teaches an electrochemical device, which may be a lithium-ion battery, a negative electrode (Liu, [0037], [0059]), a negative active material of the negative electrode, wherein the negative active material may include graphite and has a Dv90 of 5 – 20 µm. Adjusting the Dv90 of the negative active material to within the specified range helps to form a synergistic effect between the negative active material, the positive active material, and the electrolyte, and helps improve the cycle and storage performance of the electrochemical device (Liu, [0043]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the D90 of Chen to Song’s first silicon material, to substitute Song’s first graphite D50 range for Feng’s D50 range, and to add Liu’s D90 range to Song’s first graphite in order to provide a battery that avoids decreased capacity due to oxidation problems of the silicon material (Chen, [0259]), to promote stable interactions of the metal active ions thereby ensuring relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]), and to promote a synergistic effect between the components of the battery and to improve the cycle and storage performance thereof (Liu, [0043]).
The combination of the teachings of Chen, Feng, and Liu with those of Song as described above would provide a battery having Song’s first silicon material with a D50 (corresponding to the claimed D50 particle size of the silicon particle) of 1 – 10 µm and a D90 (corresponding to the claimed D90 particle size of the silicon particle) of < 25 µm (Chen, [0259]) and Song’s first graphite with a D50 (corresponding to the claimed D50 particle size of the first graphite particle) of 3 – 18 µm and a D90 (corresponding to the claimed D90 particle size of the first graphite particle) of 5 – 20 µm (Feng, [0016], Liu, [0037], [0043]), all of which overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng.
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches a D50 of 10 – 20 µm for the second graphite (Song, [0027]) but is silent to the D90 range.
However, Feng teaches a lithium-ion battery having natural graphite as the negative active material (Feng, [0004], [0015]), and the negative active material has a particle diameter size distribution Dv50 (corresponding to the claimed D50) of 3 – 18 µm and a Dv90 (corresponding to the claimed D90) of 8 – 35 µm. When the particle size distribution of the negative active material is within the given range, a relatively low internal resistance for active metal ion intercalation and deintercalation is ensured, reducing the precipitation of active metal ions and side reactions between the metal active ions and electrolyte and ensuring relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Feng’s D90 range to Song’s first graphite in order to promote stable interactions of the metal active ions during battery cycling thereby ensuring relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]). Doing so would provide a battery having Song’s second graphite with a D50 (corresponding to the claimed D50 particle size of the second graphite particle) range of 10 – 20 µm (Song, [0027]) and a D90 (corresponding to the claimed D90 particle size of the second graphite particle) range of 8 – 35 µm (Feng, [0016]), both of which overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Feng as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0408520), hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding claim 8, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Song is silent to a minimum particle size of the second graphite.
However, the battery suggested by Song modified by Feng includes Song’s second graphite having Feng’s D90 range of 8 – 35 µm. Choi teaches a negative electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery which includes natural graphite (corresponding to the claimed second graphite) (Choi, [0002], [0014]) with a Dmax – Dmin range of 16 – 19 µm, wherein Dmax is a maximum particle diameter and Dmin is a minimum particle diameter (Choi, [0016]). When Dmax – Dmin is below 16 µm, fine powder beneficial to the output characteristics and electrode adhesive strength is excessively removed deteriorating the output and life characteristics of the battery. When Dmax – Dmin is above 19 µm, uniformity of the particle size is not good and a reaction area with an electrolyte solution is decreased negating the effect of improved swelling characteristics (Choi, [0040]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the Dmax – Dmin range Song’s second graphite in order to maintain electrode adhesive strength, ensure good output and life characteristics, and maintain improved swelling characteristics (Choi, [0040]). One skilled in the art would recognize that Dmax must be greater than or equal to D90 for any particle size distribution. Thus, the battery according to Song modified by Feng and Choi would include a Dmax range of Dmax ≥ 8 to Dmax ≥ 35 µm, corresponding to a Dmin range of 0 < Dmin ≤ 19 (maximum Dmin = D90 – {Dmax – Dmin} range) which overlaps with the claimed second graphite particle being greater than 7 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 15 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 1 of Application No. 18/740,175. Claims 2 and 3 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 3 of Application No. 18/740,175. Claims 4 and 6 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 4 of Application No. 18/740,175. Claims 7 and 8 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 6 of Application No. 18/740,175. Claim 14 of this application are patentably indistinct from claim 13 of Application No. 18/740,175. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/740,175 in view of.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 15, claim 1 of the 175 application recites all the limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5 except the first graphite particle, two graphite particles of the same type, and the relative sizes of carbon components.
However, Choi teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material since it represents higher output and capacity characteristics than other carbon-based materials (Choi, [0031]). Feng teaches graphite as the negative active material and with a particle diameter size distribution Dv50 (corresponding to the claimed D50) of 3 – 18 µm. A particle size distribution within the given range can ensure stable interactions of the metal active ions and ensure relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the hard carbon and graphite particles of the 175 application with natural graphite in order to attain higher output and capacity characteristics (Choi, [0031]) and to add Feng’s D50 range to the carbon of both layers in order to ensure stable metal ion interactions and improve cycle and kinetic performance (Feng, [0016]).
Doing so would provide both layers with a natural graphite material of the same type (corresponding to the claimed first and second graphite particle derived from the same type of graphite) and having a particle size range of 3 – 18 µm, which overlaps with the claimed second graphite being larger than the first graphite. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 18/740,175 in view of Choi.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, claim 3 of the 175 application recites all limitations of the instant claim 3 except the first graphite.
However, Choi teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material since it represents higher output and capacity characteristics than other carbon-based materials (Choi, [0031]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Choi’s graphite for the 175 application’s hard carbon in order to achieve higher output and capacity characteristics (Choi, [0031]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 18/740,175 in view of Choi and Feng.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, claim 4 of the 175 application recites all limitations of the instant claims 4 and 6 except the first graphite particle, the claimed ratio range, and the claimed first graphite particle D50 and D90 particle sizes.
However, claim 4 of the 174 application recites a D90 of the silicon particle of 18 – 22 µm. Choi teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material since it represents higher output and capacity characteristics than other carbon-based materials (Choi, [0031]). Feng teaches graphite as the negative active material and with a particle diameter size distribution Dv50 (corresponding to the claimed D50) of 3 – 18 µm and Dv90 (corresponding to the claimed D90) of 8 – 35 µm. A particle size distribution within the given range can ensure stable interactions of the metal active ions and ensure relatively high cycle and kinetic performance of the electrochemical device (Feng, [0016]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the hard carbon of the 175 application with natural graphite in order to attain higher output and capacity characteristics (Choi, [0031]) and to add Feng’s Dv50 and Dv90 ranges to the carbon of both layers in order to ensure stable metal ion interactions and improve cycle and kinetic performance (Feng, [0016]).
Feng’s Dv50 and Dv90 ranges overlap with the first graphite particle D50 and D90 particle size ranges of claim 6. Furthermore, the prior art combination suggests a ratio of the first silicon D90 to the first graphite D90 of ~0.44 - ~1.6, as calculated by the examiner, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/740,175 in view of Choi.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, claim 6 of the 175 application recites limitations overlapping with those of the instant claims 7 and 8 except the first graphite, and the minimum particle size.
However, Choi teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material since it represents higher output and capacity characteristics than other carbon-based materials (Choi, [0031]) and a Dmax – Dmin range of 16 – 19 µm, wherein Dmax is a maximum particle diameter and Dmin is a minimum particle diameter (Choi, [0016]). When Dmax – Dmin is below 16 µm, the output and life characteristics of the battery are deteriorated and when Dmax – Dmin is above 19 µm, swelling characteristics are adversely affected (Choi, [0040]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the hard carbon of the 175 application with natural graphite to achieve higher output capacity (Choi, [0031]) and to add Choi’s Dmin - Dmax range to the graphite in both negative electrode film layers in order to achieve improved swelling characteristics (Choi, [0040]). Since Dmax must be higher than D90 and D90 of the graphite particle in the second electrode film layer is 22 – 29 µm, the Dmin suggested by Choi’s Dmin – Dmax range overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/740,175 in view of Choi and Song.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of the 175 application recites all the limitations of the instant claim 9 except the first graphite particle and the claimed silicon particles content range.
However, Choi teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material since it represents higher output and capacity characteristics than other carbon-based materials (Choi, [0031]). Song teaches two negative electrode layers wherein the silicon content in the first layer is 3 – 9 wt %, the silicon content in the second layer is 1 – 3 wt %, and the silicon content in the first layer is greater than the silicon content in the second layer. The given silicon content metrics can increase the energy density while improving the overall battery cycle performance (Song, [0015]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the 175 applications hard carbon with Choi’s natural graphite in order to improve the output and capacity characteristics (Choi, [0031]), and to add Song’s silicon content metrics to both layers of the 175 application in order to increase the energy density and improve the battery cycle performance (Song, [0015]). The resulting silicon content in the first layer overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/740,175 in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of the 175 application recites all limitations of the instant claim 14 except the first graphite.
However, Choi teaches natural graphite as a negative electrode active material since it represents higher output and capacity characteristics than other carbon-based materials (Choi, [0031]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Choi’s natural graphite for the 175 applications hard carbon to increase the output and capacity characteristics of the battery (Choi, [0031]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
