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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13-18 are currently pending. Claims 2, 5, and 11 are amended. Claims 19-20 are new. Support for the amended claims is found in the claims as originally filed. The objections to the drawings set forth in the previously mailed Office Action are withdrawn as the numerals are deemed to be clear as to what they are referencing. The objections to the specification regarding the use of trade names and marks used in commerce are withdrawn as the terms are accompanied by the generic terminology and capitalized. Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to the claims set forth in the previously mailed Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20170062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teaches a negative electrode plate, comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. negative electrode comprising negative electrode active material coating negative electrode current collector in paragraph 0062 in which the current collector may be a metal sheet in paragraph 0067); and
a negative electrode film layer (see e.g. negative electrode active material slurry that is coated, dried, and then pressed onto the current collector producing what one would reasonably expect to be considered a film in paragraph 0062) which is located on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. coating on a negative electrode current collector in paragraph 0062 inherently would be on a surface) and comprises first negative electrode active material particles and second negative electrode active material particles (see e.g. the negative electrode active material comprises a first carbon-based particle and a second carbon-based particle in paragraph 0019 it is relevant to note the labeling of first and second is arbitrary)
and having a tap density of 0.4 g/cm3-1.4 g/cm3 (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may have a tap density of 0.7 – 1 g/cc or grams per cubic centimeter in paragraph 0031).
wherein a difference d in median particle size between the first negative electrode active material particles and the second negative electrode active material particles satisfies: 3 µm ≤ d ≤ 19 µm (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches particle diameter of second carbon-based particle ranges from 15 to 25 µm in paragraph 0034 while the first carbon-based particle ranges from 8 to 16 µm in paragraph 0030 so the difference may range from -1 ≤ d ≤ 17 between the second carbon-based particle and the first carbon-based particle. Furthermore, paragraph 0076, Example 1 discloses particle diameters of 16µm and 23µm, resulting in d=7, within the claimed range),
the first negative electrode active material particles are selected from one or more of hard carbon, soft carbon, and mesophase carbon microbeads (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in paragraph 0035); and the second negative electrode active material particles are selected from one or more of hard carbon. soft carbon, and mesophase carbon microbeads (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in paragraph 0035).
Lee et al. does not explicitly teach the first negative electrode active material particles comprising a plurality of adsorption holes, and
a compaction density PD of the negative electrode film layer satisfies: 0.8 g/cm3 ≤ PD ≤ 1.4 g/cm3.
However, Yamaguchi et al. teaches anode active material particles including carbon particles with pores having contact with an ionic liquid having a lithium ion conducting property (Yamaguchi paragraph 0006). Yamaguchi et al. further teaches that it is possible to manufacture an anode active material particle which can provide both the improvement in the ion conducting property and securement of the formability in (Yamaguchi paragraph 0021). Pores that are capable of comprising ionic liquid would inherently be capable of adsorption. Yamaguchi et al. and Lee et al. are analogous because they both disclose anode active materials including carbon particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon-based particles of Lee et al., including the first negative electrode active material particles, so that they comprise pores that may comprise ionic liquid having a lithium ion conducting property, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., for the improvement of the ion conducting property and securement of the forming of the anode as noted in (paragraph 0021) of Yamaguchi et al..
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. does not explicitly teach a compaction density PD of the negative electrode film layer satisfies: 0.8 g/cm3 ≤ PD ≤ 1.4 g/cm3.
Shen et al. teaches a negative electrode pole piece between 0.8-2 g/cm3, as it influences the active specific surface area. Shen further discloses that if it is too large, the active site exposed to the electrolyte of the active site will be reduced and thus less electrode can participate in the reaction (Shen paragraphs 0026-0028 and 0081-0082). Shen et al. and Lee et al. are analogous because they both disclose negative active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compaction density of the negative electrode film layer of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. to be between 0.8 and 2 g/cm3, as taught by Shen et al., in order to optimize the negative electrode activity ratio.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode active material particles have a median particle size D150 of 4 µm - 50 µm (Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 15-20 µm in paragraph 0034 which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)); and
the second negative electrode active material particles have a median particle size D250 of 1 µm - 40 µm (Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 8-16 µm in paragraph 0030 which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein based on a total mass of the first negative electrode active material particles and the second negative electrode active material particles, a mass percentage of the first negative electrode active material particles is 5%-95% (Lee et al. teaches a first carbon-based particle and a second carbon-based particle may comprise 5-20 parts by weight and 55-90 parts by weight respectively based on 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active material in paragraph 0019. Thus, the difference in weight ratio may range from:
90
90
+
5
=
90
95
=
94.7
%
90
90
+
9
=
90
99
=
90.91
%
*
*Paragraph 0021 also notes 1-20 parts by weight are silicon-based particles so in this case if the second carbon-based particle is 90 parts by weight out of 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active particle, then the highest the first carbon-based particle may be is 9 parts by weight.
55
55
+
5
=
55
60
=
91.67
%
55
55
+
20
=
55
75
=
73.3
%
I.e. the ratio of second carbon-based particles to a total of the first and second carbon-based particles may range from 73.3% to 94.7% which falls within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first negative electrode active material particles have an irregular shape and/or microspheric shape (Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the second carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in paragraph 0034 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or less in paragraph 0041), and the second negative electrode active material particles have an irregular shape and/or microspheric shape (Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the first carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in paragraph 0030 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or greater in paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1,
wherein the first negative electrode active material particles are selected from microspheric hard carbon particles (Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the second carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in paragraph 0034 and it would be obvious for it to have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or less in paragraph 0040. Lee et al. teaches the second carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in paragraph 0035), and a median particle size D150 of the first negative electrode active material particles is 10 µm – 50 µm (Lee et al. teaches the particle diameter of second carbon-based particle ranges from 15 to 25 µm in paragraph 0034 while the first carbon-based particle ranges from 8 to 16 µm in paragraph 0030. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)); and
the second negative electrode active material particles are selected from microspheric hard carbon particles (Lee et al. teaches the diameter of the first carbon-based particle is on a scale of micrometers in paragraph 0030 and it would be obvious for it have a high sphericity given the example of 0.9 or greater in paragraph 0040. Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may be soft carbon, hard carbon or meso-carbon microbeads in paragraph 0035), and a median particle size D250 of the second negative electrode active material particles is 5 µm – 40 µm (Lee et al. teaches the first carbon-based particle may have an average particle diameter D50 of 8-16 µm in paragraph 0030 which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
wherein based on a total mass of the first negative electrode active material particles and the second negative electrode active material particles, the mass percentage of the first negative electrode active material particles is 5%-95% (Lee et al. teaches a first carbon-based particle and a second carbon-based particle may comprise 5-20 parts by weight and 55-90 parts by weight respectively based on 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active material in paragraph 0019. Thus, the difference in weight ratio may range from:
90
90
+
5
=
90
95
=
94.7
%
90
90
+
9
=
90
99
=
90.91
%
*
*Paragraph 0021 also notes 1-20 parts by weight are silicon-based particles so in this case if the second carbon-based particle is 90 parts by weight out of 100 parts by weight of the total negative electrode active particle, then the highest the first carbon-based particle may be is 9 parts by weight.
55
55
+
5
=
55
60
=
91.67
%
55
55
+
20
=
55
75
=
73.3
%
I.e. the ratio of second carbon-based particles to a total of the first and second carbon-based particles may range from 73.3% to 94.7% which fall within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 11, wherein the negative electrode film layer further comprises a slip increment component (Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include a conductive agent in paragraph 0062 in which the conductive agent may be natural graphite or artificial graphite in paragraph 0066 of which the claim later defines as making up the slip increment component), a ratio of a sum of a mass of the first negative electrode active material particles and a mass of the second negative electrode active material particles to a mass of the slip increment component is 100:2-100:1 (Lee et al. teaches the conductive agent is 1 wt.% to 9 wt.% based on the total weight of the slurry for the negative electrode active material in paragraph 0066. Lee et al. teaches the slurry also comprises the active material, a solvent and may also comprise a binder in an amount of 0.1 wt.% to 10 wt.% in Para. 62-65 and the active material comprises a silicon-based particle content preferably of 90:10 to 95:5 of first and second carbon particles to silicon-based particles in paragraph 0025. Lee et al. teaches the solvent quantity in the examples is minimal in paragraph 0076, 80-83 e.g. 5:95 parts by weight of solvent to the rest of the active material in example 1 in paragraph 0076. Considering these factors, the wt.% of the conductive agent is not expected to significantly change relative to the first and second carbon particles and if anything be only slightly smaller considering the binder, solvent, and silicon quantities may be so small, thus approximately overlapping the claimed range in a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)), and the slip increment component comprises one or more of artificial graphite, natural graphite, and graphene (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include a conductive agent in paragraph 0062 in which the conductive agent may be natural graphite or artificial graphite in paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode film layer further comprises a flexible binder (Lee et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may include a binder in paragraph 0062 that may be rubber in paragraph 0064), the flexible binder comprises one or more of a styrene-acrylic emulsion, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and acrylate, polytetrafluoroethylene, nitrile rubber, and hydrogenated nitrile rubber (Lee et al. teaches acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber in paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches a secondary battery (Lee et al. teaches a secondary battery in paragraph 0019), comprising the negative electrode plate according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 by Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. above).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches a battery module (Lee et al. teaches a battery module comprising the lithium secondary cell in paragraph 0073), comprising the secondary battery according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the first negative electrode active material particles have a median particle side D150 of 4 µm-7 µm or 17 µm-50 µm (paragraph 0076, Example 1 discloses a second particle size of 23 µm, equivalent to the first material particle size, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the second negative electrode active material particles have a median particle side D150 of 4 µm-7 µm or 17 µm-50 µm (paragraph 0076, Example 1 discloses a first particle size of 16 µm, equivalent to the claimed second particle size, within the claimed range).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0097271 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1.
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. is silent regarding wherein a coating weight CW of the negative electrode film layer on single side is 2 mg/cm2 - 13 mg/cm2.
However, Wang et al. teaches a negative electrode active material with graphite material (Wang paragraph 0008) in which the single side of the negative electrode layer has a coating weight CT per unit area of 2 mg/cm2 ≤ CW ≤ 18 mg/cm2. Wang et al. associates this with high charging speed, high energy density, and long cycle life (Wang paragraph 0005). Wang and Lee are analogous because they both disclose carbon based negative electrode active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode film layer of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. to have a coating weight between 2 and 18 mg/cm2, as taught by Wang et al., to improve charging speed, energy density, and cycle life.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 113113601 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. teaches the negative electrode plate according to claim 1.
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. is silent regarding wherein the first negative electrode active material particles satisfy at least one of the following:
(1) a pore size of the adsorption pores is 0.1 nm-16 nm:
(2) a specific surface area of the first negative electrode active material particles is 1 m3/g-40 m3/g:
(3) a (002) interplanar spacing of the first negative electrode active material particles is 0.34 nm-0.45 nm; and
(4) a true density of the first negative electrode active material particles is 1.3 g/cm3 - 2.0 g/cm3.
Wang et al. teaches hard carbon in a negative electrode material with a true density of 1.3 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3 (paragraph 0066). Wang et al. teaches that changing hard carbon parameters can greatly influence electrochemical performance (paragraph 0112). Wang et al. further discloses improvements of cycle performance and capacity retention (paragraph 0031). Wang and Lee are analogous because they both disclose carbon based negative electrode active materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hard carbon particles of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. so that the true density was 1.3 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3, as taught by Wang et al., as modification of hard carbon parameters are taught to greatly influence electrochemical performance, and Wang et al. teaches improvements of cycle performance and capacity retention associated with hard carbon in this range. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0202931 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0062823 A1) and Shen et al. (CN 108844878 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US 2019/0260019 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al teaches the battery module according to claim 16.
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. fails to explicitly teach a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 16.
However, Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including a battery module (Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including the battery module provided to be used as a power source of a medium and large-sized device in (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery modules of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. so that they are incorporated into a battery pack, as taught by Jung et al. in order to have the benefit of being able to power a medium or large-sized device.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., Shen et al., and Jung et al. teaches an electrical device (Lee et al. teaches examples of use of medium and large sized devices such as electric vehicles in paragraph 0074).
Lee et al. teaches the electrical device comprises battery cells and modules (see e.g. Lee et al. teaches that the electric vehicle comprises the medium and large-sized device of the prior paragraph of battery cells and or medium and large-sized modules paragraph 0073-0074).
Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. fails to explicitly teach an electrical device, comprising the battery pack according to claim 17.
However, Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including a battery module for an electric vehicle (Jung et al. teaches a battery pack including the battery module provided to be used as a power source of a medium and large-sized device in paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery modules of Lee et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. and Shen et al. so that they are incorporated into a battery pack, as taught by Jung et al. in order to have the benefit of being able to power a medium or large-sized device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the battery module of the combination of teachings of Lee et al, Shen et al., and Jung et al. into the electric vehicle of Lee et al. considering both Lee et al. and Jung et al. disclose incorporation of the battery cells and packs into an electric vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose particles that meet the claimed particle sizes and that also meet the specific size difference relationship as claimed. Applicant references Ex Parte Kamino to assert that Lee is silent regarding the claimed relationship, and that the Office Action fails to set forth reasoning to select particle sizes that would result in the claimed relationship being satisfied. However, unlike the case of Ex Parte Kamino, Lee discloses specific examples wherein the disclosed particle sizes meet the claimed sizes and also satisfy the claimed difference relationship (see claim 1 rejection, Example 1). Therefore, Lee satisfies the claimed conditions, rendering the claim obvious.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the claimed difference relationship provides unexpected results in view of the cited prior art. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In this case, Applicant provides a single example outside the lower bound of the claimed range in Comparative Example 3, wherein d=2. The disclosure is absent of evidence and tests above the upper bound, and therefore fails to establish criticality of the claimed range.
Regarding new claims 19- 20, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach the claimed particle sizes, and that Lee teaches away from the claimed invention. However, Applicant is reminded that the labeling of “first” and “second” active material particles is an arbitrary distinction. In this case, the “second” active material particle of Lee is equated to the “first” active material particle of the claimed invention and the “first” active material particle of Lee is equated to the “second” active material particle of the claimed invention. Lee explicitly teaches first and second particle sizes within the claimed ranges of the claimed particles to which they are equated (see claims 19-20 rejection), meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights