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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, as filed 30 July 2024, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 includes the limitation “a particle size distribution Dv50 of the particulates is ….” and “a particle size distribution Dv50 of the negative electrode active material is …” If the term “particulate” is replaced with “primary particle”, it will enhance the clarity of the claim. The dependent claims 2-8 and 13 will require similar amendment. It may be helpful for the purpose of clarity to also replace “negative electrode active material” with “secondary particle.” These amendments are optional.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein a material forming the coating layer is selected from one or more of hard carbon, soft carbon, graphene, or conductive carbon black.” The instant specification at [0055] discloses that these types of carbon are the result of a coating process (e.g. spray drying) followed by carbonization or graphitization.
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) 1-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (US 20170162906 A1) in view of Yamada (US 20180013146 A1) and Spahr (US 20120077035 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakazawa teaches a negative electrode active material ([0263]),
wherein the negative electrode active material is granular, and has a secondary particle structure formed by binding several particulates; ([0269] granulated particles composed of primary particles)
a particle size distribution Dv50 of the negative electrode active material is greater than or equal to 5 μm and less than or equal to 50 μm, ([0282] volume-based D50 … 5µm or more and 30 µm or less)
at [0305], a tapped density of the negative electrode active material is from 0.7 g/cm3 to 1.6 cm3, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.8 to 1.5 g/cm3. At [0305] Nakazawa contemplates that if tap density is too low, it may be hard to reach the desired density of the negative electrode. It the tap density is too high, there are not enough gaps between particles for to ensure electrical conductivity, and it may be difficult to obtain preferrable battery characteristics. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the tapped density of the negative electrode active material in order to balance final electrode density against gap size and battery performance, with a reasonable expectation of selection a value in the overlapping part of the range.
a granular sphericity degree of the negative electrode active material is [0301] “as close to 1 as possible”, which falls within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.
Nakazawa at [0269] discloses that the primary particles are flat, however, Nakazawa is silent on the size, sphericity, and tap density of the primary particles.
Yamada, in the field of (abstract) carbon material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, discloses at [0717] Experimental Example D1, the granulation of green coke particles having a D50 of 3.3 µm to obtain a composite carbon material for a secondary battery. This primary particle falls within the claimed range of 0.5 μm to 5 μm. At Table D2, the composite carbon material of Yamada results in excellent discharge capacity, discharge characteristics, and low temperature output characteristics.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the green coke particles of Yamada for making the granulated secondary particle of Nakazawa, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a negative active material having excellent discharge capacity, discharge characteristics, and low temperature output characteristics. Because Yamada’s particles are three dimensional, they fall within the claimed sphericity degree of 0 to 1. Yamada does not explicitly teach the tap density of the green coke particles of Experimental Example D1.
Spahr, in the field of (abstract) graphite materials, discloses at [0128] Example 6, a commercial graphite material which has a D50 of 3.6 µm and a tap density of 0.376 g/cm3. A person of ordinary skill would expect the 3.3 µm primary particle of modified Nakazawa to fall within the claimed range of a tapped density of the particulates from 0 g/cm3 to 1 g/cm3, based on the data provided by Spahr.
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Nakazawa and Yamada do not explicitly teach the tap density of Yamada’s primary particle.
Spahr discloses at [0128] Example 6, a commercial graphite material which has a D50 of 3.6 µm and a tap density of 0.376 g/cm3. A person of ordinary skill would expect the 3.3 µm primary particle of modified Nakazawa to fall within the claimed range of a tapped density of the particulates from 0.2 g/cm3 to 0.6 g/cm3, based on the data provided by Spahr.
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches wherein the particle size distribution Dv50 of the negative electrode active material is greater than or equal to 10 μm and less than or equal to 30 μm; (Table 1-2, negative electrode active material 1-1, D50 is 30 µm)
Regarding claim 4, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches wherein the negative electrode active material has a secondary particle structure formed by binding several particulates via a coating layer. ([0269]) “granulated particles … a plurality of flat graphite particles are aggregated or bound… a graphitizable binder such a tar or pitch.”) Nakazawa at [0324] explicitly teaches a coating layer: “ negative electrode active material may be coated with a carbonaceous material or graphite material.” This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 5, wherein surfaces of the several particulates are coated with the coating layer.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches ([0324-0326]) a coverage factor of the carbonaceous or graphite material from 2% to 20%, which creates a mass ratio of the particulates to carbon coating from 100:2 to 100:25, which overlaps the claimed range of from 100:10 to 100:30. (Examiner notes that the equation for coverage factor is found a [0326].) At [0324] Nakazawa contemplates that if the content ratio is too low, robust granulation does not occur and the particles tend to be excessively small. If the content ratio is too high, battery capacity tends to decrease. A person of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the mass ratio of the particulates to carbon coating in order to balance robust granulation versus battery capacity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches wherein a component of the particulate comprises a carbon material. ([0264] natural graphite, artificial graphite)
Regarding claim 9, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches wherein the carbon material is ([0264] natural graphite, artificial graphite) which are candidates within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 10, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches wherein a material forming the coating layer is selected from ([0324] graphite material, amorphous carbon) these are equivalent to hard or soft carbon and carbon black, respectively. This renders obvious the selection of hard carbon, soft carbon, and carbon black which are candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 11, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches [0269] a graphitization binder such as tar or pitch (equivalent to asphalt) which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.)
Regarding claim 14, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches ([0307] an orientation ratio (110)/(004) of the carbonaceous material which is preferably 0.015 or more and 0.67 or less. Examiner notes that this converts to an orientation ratio (004)/(110) of 1.29 to 66.7, which overlaps the claimed range of “wherein a ratio of a strength D004 of a crystal surface 004 of the negative electrode active material to a strength D110 of a crystal surface 110 of the negative electrode active material ranges from 1 to 5.” Nakazawa notes at [0287] that if crystals are oriented in the direction parallel to the electrode plate, load characteristics may decrease. At [0310], if the orientation ratio is outside of the claimed range, high-density charge discharge characteristics may decrease. At [0707], if the particles are all uniformly oriented in different directions, expansion and contraction of the electrode is reduced. A person of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the orientation ratio (004)/(110) of the active material of modified Nakazawa, in order to balance load characteristics and expansion and contraction during charging, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches a negative electrode plate, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises the negative electrode active material according to claim 1. ([0354] (emphasis added) “The slurry for forming the negative electrode active material layer is prepared by mixing an electrically conductive material, binder and thickener as necessary into the aforementioned negative electrode active material and using an aqueous solvent or organic solvent as a dispersion medium.” [0355] (emphasis added) “After having coated the resulting slurry onto the aforementioned negative electrode current collector and drying, a negative electrode active material is formed by pressing.”) This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 16, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a current collector and an active material layer on at least one side surface of the current collector, and the active material layer comprises the negative electrode active material.
Regarding claim 17, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches [0359] an electrode density of 1.3 g/cm3 to 1.9 g/cm3, which encompasses the claimed range of a press density from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3. Nakazawa further contemplates that if the electrode density is too low, electrical conductivity between the current collector and the negative active material layer may be too low. If the electrode density if too high, particles may be destroyed, leading to an increase in irreversible initial capacity. A person of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the electrode density of modified Nakazawa in order to balance the electrical conductivity with the current collector and increased irreversible capacity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Nakazawa further teaches wherein the battery comprises the negative electrode active material according to claim 1. ([0620-0262] battery including negative active material and negative electrode) This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 20, wherein the battery comprises the negative electrode plate according to claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Nakazawa does not explicitly teach wherein an energy density of the battery ranges from 500 Wh/L to 600 Wh/L, however, it is the position of the Examiner that the energy density property of the battery is inherent, given that both Nakazawa and the instant invention use the same negative electrode material, with similar particle size, coating, and orientation index. Nakazawa and the instant invention also use similar positive active materials and electrolyte solution (At [0092] of the instant specification, the battery further comprises positive active material including NCM 523 active material, and LiPF6 electrolyte solution. Nakazawa discloses at [0417] an NMC positive active material (equivalent to NCM) and at [0420] an LiPf6 electrolyte solution.) Therefore, the energy density of the instant claim is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (US 20170162906 A1) in view of Yamada (US 20180013146 A1) as set forth in claim 1, and in further view of Yokomizo (US 20080032192 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Nakazawa at [0269] teaches graphitization of granulated particles composed of primary particles. However, Nakazawa does not explicitly teach wherein the coating layer is prepared from a raw material of the coating layer via spray drying, heat treatment, and graphitization.
Yokomizo, in the field of (abstract) negative electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries, including [0081-0085] graphite materials, discloses at [0007] a coating process by spray drying a dispersion of pitch coke particles. At [0065] Yokomizo discloses a process of impregnation using spray drying, followed by shelf drying with a heater. At [0020], this process creates an active material having high energy density.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the spray drying followed by heating steps of Yokomizo for the granulation process of modified Nakazawa, with a reasonable expectation of successfully creating an active material with good energy density.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa (US 20170162906 A1) in view of Yamada (US 20180013146 A1) and Yokomizo (US 20080032192 A1), as set forth in claim 12, above, and in further view of Woo (US 202000196435 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nakazawa in view of Yamada and Spahr and Yokomizo teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Nakazawa further teaches ([0324-0326]) a coverage factor of the carbonaceous or graphite material from 2% to 20%, which creates a mass ratio of the particulates to carbon coating from 100:2 to 100:25, which overlaps the claimed range of from 100:10 to 100:30. (Examiner notes that the equation for coverage factor is found a [0326].) At [0324] Nakazawa contemplates that if the content ratio is too low, robust granulation does not occur and the particles tend to be excessively small. If the content ratio is too high, battery capacity tends to decrease. A person of ordinary skill is motivated to optimize the mass ratio of the particulates to carbon coating in order to balance robust granulation versus battery capacity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Nakazawa does not explicitly teach that a mass ratio of the particulates to the raw material of the coating layer ranges from 100:10 to 100:30.
Woo, in the field of (abstract) heat treatment of pitch and carbon composites, discloses at [0046] and FIG. 4 that pitch can lose significant amounts of weight during heat treatment.
A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize the mass ratio of the raw material of the coating layer, order to balance robust granulation versus battery capacity, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value within the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights