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 Objections
Claims 4, 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 – the recitation, “having D50 is 9 μm or greater” should be amended to recite: --having D50 of 9 μm or greater--
Claim 6 – Claim 6 is objected to for awkward and redundant phrasing. The claim concludes with "and at least one selected from a group of cobalt, manganese and aluminum is comprised". To improve clarity and syntax, this clause should be amended to read: --and further at least one selected from the group consisting of cobalt, manganese, and aluminum"
Claim 9 – Claim 9 is objected to for improper Markush formatting. Claim 9 recites "at least one selected from a group of a silicon oxide, a silicon metal complex, and a silicon carbon composite". Appropriate Markush phrasing requires: --at least one selected from the group consisting of a silicon oxide, a silicon metal complex, and a silicon carbon composite--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Findings of Fact & Wands Analysis:
Breadth of Claims vs. Working Examples: Independent Claim 1 encompasses virtually any lithium secondary battery containing any positive electrode, any separator, and any negative electrode comprising a silicon-based active material, provided it satisfies the functional discharge resistance ratio of Equation 1 (100% to 140% at 2.5C pulse discharge, 10 seconds, at 5% vs. 50% SOC). In contrast, the specification provides working examples for only one narrow, specific cell build: an Al-doped NCM (84:8:8) positive electrode paired with a negative electrode comprising 5 wt% Mg-doped SiO and 95 wt% graphite.
Extreme Sensitivity to Unclaimed Cathode Parameters: Applicant’s own specification and experimental results [Table 1] demonstrate that satisfying the resistance ratio of Equation 1 is critically sensitive to specific particle size distributions and blending ratios of the cathode active material. In Comparative Examples 1 and 2, when the cathode active material consisted solely of small particles (D50 = 4.3 μm or a 25:75 blend of large-to-small particles, the resistance ratio fell below the claimed range (97.7% and 98.5%, respectively). In Comparative Example 3, when the cathode active material was shifted to an 80:20 blend of large-to-small particles, the ratio rose above the claimed range to 143.7%. Despite this extreme sensitivity, Claim 1 recites no limitations whatsoever regarding positive electrode particle sizes, bimodal distributions, or blending weight ratios.
Absence of Predictable Guidance: Claim 1 does not constrain the positive electrode chemistry (encompassing LFP, LCO, standard NCM, NCA, etc.), nor does it limit the negative electrode active material beyond the presence of an unspecified silicon-based material. The specification provides no formula, correlation, or guidance that would enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to predict which cathode/anode pairings outside the exemplary Al-doped NCM84 and Mg-doped SiO/graphite system would achieve the claimed pulse resistance ratio of 100% to 140%. A PHOSITA attempting to practice the full scope of Claim 1 across different battery chemistries would be forced to resort to undue experimentation.
Claims 5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites, "wherein the positive electrode comprises a first positive electrode active material having D50 of 9 μm or greater and a second positive electrode active material having D50 of 6 μm or less". Claim 5 depends from Claim 1, which only recites "a positive electrode" without reciting any active material or distinguishing between a "first" or "second" active material. For example, it is unclear whether the first and second active material are comprised by a single active material layer of the positive electrode or different layers, whether they are provided as a mixture in a single layer or in specific regions. Because Claim 5 introduces these elements as definite articles without defining their relationship to the positive electrode of Claim 1, the scope of the cathode components is ambiguous. For examination purposes, and in light of the specification [refer to working Examples 1-2], the first and second active materials will be considered as a mixture in a single active material layer.
Claims 15-16 are rejected by virtue for including subject matter of claim 5.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,609,345 B2 (hereinafter, “Patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain indistinguishable claims [MPEP 804(II)(B)(1)], and because Patent was issued from Application 9/172,750, which was filed as a continuation application of Application Serial No. 18/777,938 (the instant application), rather than a divisional application resulting from a restriction requirement imposed under 35 U.S.C. § 121. Thus, safe harbor protections under 35 U.S.C. § 121 do not apply.
Further, Claim 1 of Patent claims a specific battery combination comprising: (i) a positive electrode comprising 30 to 75 parts by weight of a first active material having D50 of 9 μm and a second active material having D50 6 μm; (ii) a negative electrode comprising a silicon-based active material; (iii) an Equation 1 resistance ratio of 100% to 140%; and (iv) an Equation 2 resistance ratio of 90% to 110%. Pending Claim 1 of the instant application recites a broader genus that reads directly on the species/combination patented in Claim 1 of Patent, requiring only a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode comprising a silicon-based active material, and the Equation 1 resistance ratio of 100% to 140%. A prior patent claiming a narrower species/combination renders prima facie obvious a subsequent pending claim directed to a broader genus covering that same species.
Furthermore, pending dependent claims 3, 4, and 5 recite the exact bimodal D50 values and Equation 2 limitations already patented in Claim 1 of Patent, making them patentably indistinct duplicates.
NOTE: This rejection may be obviated by filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) disclaiming the terminal part of any patent granted on this application beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,609,345 B2, accompanied by the required fee and common ownership agreement.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20200335783A1 – see IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a lithium secondary battery [pars. 0011,0016,0069-70,0095; Fig. 1], comprising:
a positive electrode (a positive electrode comprising a current collector and a positive electrode active material layer formed on the collector) [pars. 0015,0060,0093];
a separator (a polyethylene separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode) [pars. 0016,0070,0079,0095]; and
a negative electrode (a negative electrode comprising a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer) [pars. 0016,0071,0094].
Lee fails to expressly disclose in its working examples that: (A) the negative electrode comprises a silicon-based active material; and (B) wherein a resistance ratio represented by Equation 1 below is within a range of 100% to 140%:
[SOC 5% discharge resistance]/[SOC 50% discharge resistance]×100−100, [Equation 1]
wherein the SOC 5% discharge resistance and the SOC 50% discharge resistance are resistances measured when a discharge pulse is applied at states of charge (SOC) of 5% and 50%, 2.5 C and 25° C. for 10 seconds, respectively.
Pertaining (A) above, Lee discloses, in the description of negative electrode active materials for the lithium secondary battery, that the negative electrode active material includes metallic compounds alloyable with lithium such as silicon (Si), a metal oxide which may be doped and undoped with lithium such as SiOβ (0<β<2), or a composite including the metallic compound and the carbonaceous material such as an Si-C composite [par. 0074]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify Lee by incorporating a silicon-based active material (such as Si, SiOβ, or an Si-C composite) into the negative electrode active material layer as taught by Lee [par. 0074] in order to increase the reversible capacity and energy density of the battery, since silicon provides a significantly higher theoretical lithium storage capacity than carbonaceous materials alone [pars. 0003,0074].
Pertaining (B) above, in regards to the functional resistance ratio of Equation 1, the instant specification demonstrates that this resistance ratio is an inherent electrochemical property resulting directly from pairing the cathode active material blend (large and small particle sizes at the specified blending ratios) with a silicon-containing negative electrode active material [PgPublication – pars. 0021,0082,0098-100; Table 1]. Because the combination of modified Lee's positive electrode active material (e.g., including LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 having an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 μm and LiNi0.83Co0.11Mn0.04Al0.02O2 having an average particle diameter (D50) of 15 μm mixed at a weight ratio of 30:70 – [see Example 1]) and silicon-based negative electrode active material results in a lithium secondary battery structurally and chemically identical or substantially identical to the claimed battery [pars. 0011-15,0028-44,0050-53,0074,0092-95], the modified battery would inherently exhibit the claimed pulse discharge resistance ratio of 100% to 140% when tested under the identical pulse discharge conditions (2.5 C, 25°C, 10 seconds at 5% and 50% SOC). Under MPEP 2112, the burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate that the prior art battery would not exhibit the claimed resistance ratio.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. As set forth in Claim 1, modified Lee discloses pairing the bimodal positive electrode active material with a silicon-based negative electrode active material (see Example 1) [pars. 0011-15, 0050-53, 0074, 0092-96]. Because the battery structure and materials are substantially identical to Applicant's exemplary batteries (which exhibit Equation 1 values of 111.8% and 114.7%) [pars. 0080-88, 0098-99; Table 1], the modified battery of Lee inherently possesses a resistance ratio of Equation 1 within the range of 100% to 120% under MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1.
Lee fails to expressly disclose wherein a resistance ratio represented by Equation 2 below is within a range of 90% to 110%:
[SOC 5% discharge resistance]/[SOC 20% discharge resistance]×100−100, [Equation 2]
wherein the SOC 5% discharge resistance and the SOC 20% discharge resistance are resistances measured when a discharge pulse is applied at states of charge (SOC) of 5% and 20%, 2.5 C and 25° C. for 10 seconds, respectively.
As set forth in Claim 1, modified Lee discloses the structural and chemical combination of the bimodal cathode and silicon-based anode (see Example 1) [pars. 0011-15, 0050-53, 0074, 0092-96]. Because the physical structure is substantially identical to Applicant's exemplary batteries (which exhibit Equation 2 values of 92.0% and 96.0%) [pars. 0080-88, 0098-99; Table 1], the modified battery of Lee inherently possesses a resistance ratio of Equation 2 within the range of 90% to 110% under MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, wherein the positive electrode comprises from 30 parts by weight to 75 parts by weight of a positive electrode active material having a D50 of 9 μm or greater, based on 100 parts by weight of a positive electrode active material (i.e., the first positive electrode active material having a D50 of 10 to 20 μm, specifically 15 μm, present in amounts of 30 parts by weight or 70 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of total active material) [pars. 0014, 0050, 0053, 0092, 0096].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, wherein the positive electrode comprises a first positive electrode active material having a D50 of 9 μm or greater and a second positive electrode active material having D50 of 6 μm or less (i.e., large diameter particles having a D50 of 10 μm to 20 μm, specifically 15 μm and small diameter particles having a D50 of 1 μm to 7, specifically 5 μm) [pars. 0014, 0053, 0092, 0096].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, wherein the positive electrode comprises, as a positive electrode active material, a lithium composite oxide in which a nickel content is 60 mol % or more among 100 mol % of metals other than lithium and at least one selected from a group of cobalt, manganese, and aluminum is comprised (Lia[NibCocM1 dMa e]O2, where 0.8≤b<1 and M1 is Mn, Al, Zr, or Mg; where 0.8≤y<1 and M2 is Al, Mg, Zr, or Ti, specifically LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and LiNi0.83Co0.11Mn0.04Al0.02O2 [pars. 0011-13, 0028-44, 0092, 0096].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Lee fails to expressly disclose in its working examples that the negative electrode comprises a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material, as a negative electrode active material. However, Lee discloses that the negative electrode active material may include carbonaceous materials such as artificial graphite or natural graphite in combination with metallic compounds alloyable with lithium such as silicon (Si), metal oxides such as SiOβ, or Si-C composites [pars. 0074-75,0094]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify Lee by utilizing a mixture of a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material (graphite) as taught by Lee in order to buffer and accommodate the volumetric expansion and contraction of silicon during charging and discharging while simultaneously achieving higher energy density than carbonaceous materials alone [pars. 0003,0074-75].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1 and further discloses blending silicon-based active materials with carbonaceous active materials [pars. 0074-75]. Lee fails to expressly specify that the negative electrode comprises from 1 part by weight to 10 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of a negative electrode active material. However, Lee discloses that the negative electrode active material layer includes 80 wt% to 99 wt% of negative electrode active material [par. 0075] and teaches combining silicon and graphite [par. 0074]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to utilize 1 part by weight to 10 parts by weight of the silicon-based active material based on 100 parts by weight of total negative electrode active material through routine optimization, in order to maintain structural electrode stability and cycle life by mitigating the excessive volume expansion associated with higher concentrations of silicon while obtaining meaningful capacity enhancement [pars. 0003,0074-75].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1, wherein the silicon-based active material comprises at least one selected from a group of a silicon oxide, a silicon metal complex, and a silicon carbon composite (SiOβ (0<β<2), Si alloys, or Si-C composites) [par. 0074].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 7, wherein the carbon-based active material comprises at least one of artificial graphite or natural graphite [par. 0074].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Lee fails to expressly disclose that the resistance ratio represented by Equation 1 is within a range of 100% to 115%. As set forth in Claim 1, Lee discloses the structural and chemical combination of the bimodal cathode and silicon-based anode [pars. 0011-15,0050-53,0074,0092-96]. Because the physical structure is substantially identical to Applicant's Example 1 and Example 2 batteries (exhibiting Equation 1 values of 111.8% and 114.7%) [pars. 0080-88, 0098-99; Table 1], the modified battery of Lee inherently possesses a resistance ratio of Equation 1 within the range of 100% to 115% under MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claims 12, 13, and 14, Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 3. Lee fails to expressly disclose that the resistance ratio represented by Equation 2 is within a range of from 90% to 100% (Claim 12), 90% to 98% (Claim 13), or 92% to 96% (Claim 14). As set forth in Claim 1, Lee discloses the structural and chemical combination of the bimodal cathode and silicon-based anode [pars. 0011-15,0050-53,0074,0092-96]. Because the physical structure is substantially identical to Applicant's Example 1 and Example 2 batteries (exhibiting Equation 2 values of 92.0% and 96.0%) [pars. 0080-88,0098-99; Table 1], the modified battery of Lee inherently possesses a resistance ratio of Equation 2 within the ranges of 90% to 100%, 90% to 98%, and 92% to 96% under MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 5, wherein the first positive electrode active material (D50 > 9 μm, specifically 15μm) and the second positive electrode active material (D50 < 6 μm, specifically 5 μm) are present at a weight ratio of 70:30 (Example 2) or 30:70 (Example 1) [pars. 0050, 0092, 0096], which directly meets the respective claimed ranges of claims 15 and 16.
Regarding Claims 17, 18, and 19, Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 6, wherein the nickel content of the lithium composite oxide active material is:
from 80 mol % to less than 100 mol % (Claim 18); and
from 60 mol % to less than 100 mol % (Claim 19), as Lee specifically discloses active materials having nickel contents of 80 mol% and 83 mol% (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and LiNi0.83Co0.11Mn0.04Al0.02O2) [pars. 0028, 0031, 0036, 0039, 0092, 0096].
Regarding Claim 17 (nickel content is from 60 mol % to 80 mol %), Lee discloses positive electrode active materials having a nickel content of 80 mol % (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) [pars. 0028, 0031, 0092, 0096] and further discloses active materials where the nickel molar ratio b satisfies 0.8≤b<1 [pars. 0028, 0031], which touches the claimed endpoint of 80 mol %. Additionally, Lee discloses that transition metal oxides with nickel contents of 60 mol% (LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2) may be employed in positive electrode materials [pars. 0112-14].
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses the lithium secondary battery of Claim 9, wherein the silicon-based active material comprises the silicon carbon composite (Si-C composite) [par. 0074]. Lee fails to expressly state that the silicon in the silicon carbon composite is nano silicon. Lee discloses that the Si-C composite comprises a composite of silicon and carbonaceous material [par. 0074]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to configure the silicon in Lee's Si-C composite as nano-sized silicon, because it was well known in the art that reducing silicon particle dimensions to nanoscale minimizes mechanical stress and prevents particle pulverization during lithium insertion and extraction [pars. 0003, 0074].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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 LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
