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 non-obviousness.
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 1-2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 14, Yao et al. discloses in Figs 1-14, a negative electrode sheet (ref 804), comprising: a negative current collector (ref 808); a first negative electrode film layer (ref 840) attached to a surface (Fig 8) of the negative current collector (ref 808), an active substance of the first negative electrode film layer (ref 840) comprising silicon particles ([0057], [0073], [0087], [0152]) and hard carbon particles ([0057], [0073], [0087], [0152]), and the first negative electrode film layer comprising a lithium supplement agent; a second negative electrode film layer (ref 842) attached to a surface (Fig 8) of the first negative electrode film layer (ref 840), an active substance of the second negative electrode film layer (ref 840) comprising graphite particles ([0057], [0059], [0073], [0087], [0152]).
Yao et al. does not explicitly disclose the first negative electrode film layer comprising a lithium supplement agent comprising at least one of a lithium metal powder and lithium peroxide, wherein a mass ratio of the lithium supplement agent to the silicon particles is 1%-30%
Ota et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract) including a negative electrode material comprising silicon ([0014], [0030], [0040], [0044]) and lithium powder ([0017], [0018]) in an amount including 1-30 weight % ([0018]). This configuration enhances battery conductivity, stability, and cycling properties ([0017], [0018], [0003]).
Ota et al. and Yao et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the lithium metal powder in the amount disclosed by Ota et al. into the anode of Yao et al. to enhance battery conductivity, stability, and cycling properties.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a ratio of a thickness of the first negative electrode film layer (ref 840) to a thickness of the second negative electrode film layer (erf 842) is 1:9 to 9:1 (Fig 8, [0119]).
Regarding claim 15, Yao et al. discloses in Figs 1-14, a lithium-ion battery (ref 800), comprising a positive electrode sheet (ref 802), a negative electrode sheet (ref 804), a separator (ref 812) and an electrolyte solution (ref 810, [0114]), wherein the negative electrode sheet (ref 804) is the negative electrode sheet (ref 804) as set forth above.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 2015/0004488).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Yao et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the D90 particle size of the graphite particle to the D90 particle size of the silicon particle is 1.0-1.5, the change in the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Abdelsalam et al. (see [0135]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite. For that reason, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite in the electrode sheet of Yao et al. as taught by Abdelsalam et al. to obtain the desired battery electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2019/0229338).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses a particle size of the hard carbon particle is smaller than a particle size of the silicon particle ([0047], [0069]-[0071]), but does not explicitly disclose an outer wall of the silicon particle is wrapped with the hard carbon particles.
Ho et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a secondary lithium battery (Abstract) including a negative electrode active material comprising silicon and hard carbon shell material ([0050]-[0051]). This configuration enhances overall battery performance (Abstract, [0009]).
Ho et al. and Yao et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the hard carbon shell material disclosed by Ho et al. into the silicon-containing active material of Yao et al. to enhance overall battery performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) and Ho et al. (US 2019/0229338) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 2015/0004488).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Yao et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the D90 particle size of the graphite particle to the D90 particle size of the silicon particle is 1.0-1.5, the change in the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Abdelsalam et al. (see [0135]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite. For that reason, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite in the electrode sheet of Yao et al. as taught by Abdelsalam et al. to obtain the desired battery electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawaura et al. (US 2020/0287204).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose in the first negative electrode film layer, a D50 particle size of the silicon particle is 6-10 microns, and a D90 particle size of the silicon particle is 18-22 microns.
Kawaura et al. discloses in Fig 1-8, a lithium ion secondary battery (ref 10) including a negative electrode (ref 12) comprising silicon particles with a D50 of 5-15 microns and D90 of 10-20 microns ([0041]), overlapping that of the instant claim. This configuration enhances electrical performance of the battery ([0041], [0058]-[0061]).
Kawaura et al. and Yao et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the silicon particle size distribution disclosed by Kawaura et al. into the material of Yao et al. to enhance battery electrical performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) and Kawaura et al. (US 2020/0287204) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 2015/0004488).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Yao et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the D90 particle size of the graphite particle to the D90 particle size of the silicon particle is 1.0-1.5, the change in the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Abdelsalam et al. (see [0135]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite. For that reason, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite in the electrode sheet of Yao et al. as taught by Abdelsalam et al. to obtain the desired battery electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onizuka (US 2015/0207173).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the hard carbon particle is spherical particle, and a particle size of the hard carbon particle is 0.5 – 2 microns.
Onzuka discloses in Fig 1-7, a lithium ion secondary battery ([0042]) including a negative electrode ([0043]) comprising spherical hard carbon of about 1 micron in size ([0043]). This configuration enhances performance of the battery ([0043], [0091]-[0092]).
Onizuka and Yao et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the spherical hard carbon particle size disclosed by Onizuka into the material of Yao et al. to enhance battery performance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) and Kawaura et al. (US 2020/0287204) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 2015/0004488).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Yao et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the D90 particle size of the graphite particle to the D90 particle size of the silicon particle is 1.0-1.5, the change in the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Abdelsalam et al. (see [0135]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite. For that reason, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite in the electrode sheet of Yao et al. as taught by Abdelsalam et al. to obtain the desired battery electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawai et al. (US 2010/0297500).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose in the second negative electrode film layer, a D10 particle size of the graphite particle is 3-6 microns, a D50 particle size of the graphite particle is 11-14 microns, and a D90 particle size of the graphite particle is 22-29 microns.
Kawai et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a secondary battery (Abstract) including a negative electrode comprising graphite active material having a particle size D50 10-20 microns ([0035], P6/Claim 3) and a size D90:D10 ratio of 6 ([0035], overlaps size ratio of instant claim). This configuration enhances battery electrical performance ([0044]-[0050]).
Kawai et al. and Yao et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the graphite particle size distribution disclosed by Kawai et al. into the graphite material of Yao et al. to enhance battery electrical performance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2019/0296332) in view of Ota et al. (US 2016/0126543) and Kawai et al. (US 2010/0297500) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 2015/0004488).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yao et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Yao et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the D90 particle size of the graphite particle to the D90 particle size of the silicon particle is 1.0-1.5, the change in the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Abdelsalam et al. (see [0135]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite will vary the electrical performance of said battery. Therefore the electrical performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite. For that reason, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle size ratio of silicon to graphite in the electrode sheet of Yao et al. as taught by Abdelsalam et al. to obtain the desired battery electrical performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dover et al. (US 2007/0006680) discloses in Figs 1-5, a secondary lithium battery (Abstract) including an anode comprising lithium metal powder and silicon ([0023]).
Yamano et al. (US 2017/0338511) discloses in Figs 1-4, a lithium ion battery ([0035]) including a negative electrode active material comprising Si and hard carbon in different respective amounts ([0027]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights