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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20-24, with Claims 22-24 being withdrawn from consideration.
The examined Claims are 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-18, 20-21, with Claim 1 being amended.
Response to Arguments
In view of the aforementioned amendment(s) to the Claims, the previous rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant has mainly amended independent Claim 1 to (1) require that the first active layer comprises (in addition to the first silicon-based material) a first graphite, the first silicon-based material comprises carbon element, a mass percentage of the carbon element in the first silicon-based material relative to the first silicon-based material is less than or equal to 8%, and (2) require that the second active later comprises (in addition the second silicon-based material) a second graphite, the second silicon-based material comprises the carbon element, a mass percentage of the carbon element in the second silicon-based material relative to the second silicon-based material is 40% to 60%.
Applicant argues that the prior art references of record neither teaches nor suggest, at least, the amended limitations of Claim 1 (See Pages 9-11 of Applicant’s 03/10/26 Remarks). In particular, Applicant argues that now matter how the disclosure of Umetsu is interpreted, Umetsu neither teaches nor suggests a silicon-based material comprising carbon element with a mass percentage of “less than or equal to 8%” (See Pages 9-11 of Applicant’s 03/10/26 Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. It is noted, however, that all previous prior art rejections of record are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-13, 15, 17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218), and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2021/0143414) and Park et al. (US 2022/0367864).
Regarding Claim 1, Duan teaches a negative electrode plate (“negative electrode plate”), and a lithium-ion battery (“secondary battery”) comprising the negative electrode plate ([0001], [0030], [0035]-[0036]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Duan teaches that the negative electrode plate comprises a current collector (1) (“negative electrode current collector”) and an active material layer (2) formed on at least one surface of the current collector ([0020]). As illustrated in Figure 1, the active material layer comprises a first active material layer (5) (“first active layer”) and a second active material layer (6) (“second active layer”), wherein the first active material layer is between the current collector and the second active layer (“the first active layer is between the negative electrode current collector and the second active layer”) ([0021]). As illustrated in Figure 1, the first active material layer comprises a first Si-based material (3) (“first silicon-based material”) and the second active material layer comprises a second Si-based material (4) (“second silicon-based material”) ([0021]). Duan teaches that the first active material layer further includes a graphite therein (e.g. artificial graphite, natural graphite) (“first graphite”), and teaches that the second active material further includes a graphite therein (e.g. artificial graphite, natural graphite) (“second graphite”) ([0028]).
Duan does not explicitly teach that a sphericity of the first Si-based material is greater than a sphericity of the second Si-based material, and does not explicitly teach that the sphericity of the first Si-based material is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Guo teaches a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 2, Guo teaches that the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector (521), a first active material layer (522), and a second active material layer (523), wherein the first active material layer is positioned between the negative current collector and the second active material layer ([0029]). Guo teaches that the first and second active material layers comprise first and second active materials capable of intercalation/deintercalation of lithium ions, wherein Si-based materials (e.g. silicon, silicon oxides, silicon-carbon composites) are specifically notated as such active materials used in the negative electrode ([0059]). Guo teaches that the first active material exhibits a sphericity (i.e. a ratio of shortest to longest diameter) of 0.5 to 1, wherein it is noted that Guo teaches that characteristics such as contact between particles, electronic conductivity, increases in porosity and increasing electrolyte infiltration are affected by sphericity within said range ([0045], [0047]). Guo teaches that the second active material exhibits a sphericity of preferably 0.3 to 1, wherein it is noted that Guo teaches that characteristics such as pore formation, electrolyte infiltration, increases in packing compactness, electrolyte retention, and energy density are affected by sphericity within said range ([0046]]-[0047]). Moreover, Guo teaches that it is beneficial from the standpoint of improving liquid absorption and storage capacity characteristics of the negative electrode for the first active material to exhibit a higher sphericity than the second active material ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the negative electrode plate of Duan, ensure that the sphericity of the first Si-based material is 0.5 to 1 and the sphericity of the second Si-based material is 0.3 to 1 with the further provision that the sphericity of the first Si-based material is greater than that of the second Si-based material, as taught by Guo, given that such a modification would be beneficial from the standpoint of at least improving liquid absorption and storage capacity characteristics of the negative electrode plate. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Duan, as modified by Guo, does not explicitly teach that the first Si-based material comprises carbon element in a mass percentage in accordance with the claimed range, and does not explicitly teach that the second Si-based material comprises carbon element in a mass percentage in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Park teaches a negative electrode comprising a silicon-based active material (Abstract, [0020], [0034]). Park teaches that the silicon-based active material further comprises a carbon coating layer on a surface thereof which helps control excessive volumetric expansion during charge and discharge ([0042]-[0043]). Park teaches that the carbon coating layer is included in an amount of from 0.1-50 wt% relative to the total weight of the silicon-based active material ([0045]). Park teaches that such a carbon content enhances electrical conductivity and provides for uniform charging and discharging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Duan, as modified by Guo, (1) include a carbon coating layer on a surface of the first Si-based material (“first silicon-based material comprises carbon element”) such that the carbon is included in an amount of from 0.1-50 wt% relative to the total weight of the first Si-based material, as taught by Park, and (2) include a carbon coating layer on a surface of the second Si-based material (“second silicon-based material comprises carbon element”) such that the carbon is included in an amount of from 0.1-50 wt% relative to the total weight of the second Si-based material, as also taught by Park, given that such carbon coating layers would help control excessive volumetric expansion during charge and discharge, and such a carbon content would help enhance electrical conductivity while providing for uniform charging and discharging. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 2, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the sphericity of the first Si-based material is 0.5 to 0.9, and the sphericity of the second Si-based material is 0.3 to 1. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 6, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Duan teaches that the Dv50 of the first Si-based material is smaller (“less than or equal to”) than the Dv50 of the second Si-based material ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 7, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
Duan teaches that the Dv50 of the first Si-based material is 1-8 µm ([0009], [0053]). It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 12, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Duan teaches that the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.2-100 µm, and teaches that the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.2-100 µm, wherein said two thickness may be equal to one another (“a thickness of the first active layer is greater than or equal to a thickness of the second active layer”) ([0024], [0039]). Duan teaches that with respect to each of said ranges, when the thickness is too small, sufficient active material cannot be maintained, whereas when the thickness is too large, liquid phase diffusion of the electrolyte in the first active material layer is adversely affected. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 13, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 12), Duan teaches that the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.2-100 µm, and teaches that the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.2-100 µm. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 15, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Duan teaches that the first Si-based material is, for example, a silicon oxide (“the first silicon-based material comprises oxygen element”) ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 17, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Duan teaches that the second Si-based material is, for example, a silicon oxide (“the second silicon-based material comprises oxygen element”) ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 20, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Duan teaches a lithium-ion battery (“secondary battery”) comprising the negative electrode plate.
Regarding Claim 21, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the sphericity of the second Si-based material is 0.3 to 1. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 3-4, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218), and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2021/0143414) and Park et al. (US 2022/0367864) and He et al. (WO 2022/057668, using the equivalent US 2023/0066253 for translation/citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 3, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, does not explicitly teach that a mass percentage of the first Si-based material relative to an active material in the first active material layer is less than or equal to a mass percentage of the second Si-based material relative to an active material in the second active material layer.
He teaches a negative electrode (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, He teaches that the negative electrode comprises a current collector (10), a first active layer (11) provided on the current collector, and a second active layer (12) provided on the first active layer ([0034]). He teaches that the first active layer comprises a first silicon-based active material and graphite, and teaches that the second active layer comprises a second silicon-based active material and graphite ([0037]). He teaches that graphite and silicon, in combination, not only help prevent problems such as short cycle life and high cyclic expansion ratio, but also help improve cycle performance, increase energy density, increase battery capacity, and prolong battery cycle life ([0037]). He teaches that in the first active layer, the first silicon-based active material accounts for 5-20 mass% of the active material in the first active layer ([0037]. Similarly, He teaches that in the second active layer, the second silicon-based active material accounts for 5-20 mass% of the active material in the second active layer ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the negative electrode plate of Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, ensure that the first and second active material layers each comprise the first or second Si-based material such that the first or second Si-based material accounts for 5-20 mass% of the active material in the first or second active material layer (“a mass percentage of the first silicon-based material relative to an active material in the first active layer is less than or equal to a mass percentage of the second silicon-based material relative to an active material in the second active layer”), as taught by He, given that such a content of silicon would not only help prevent problems such as short cycle life and high cyclic expansion ratio, but also help improve cycle performance, increase energy density, increase battery capacity, and prolong battery cycle life. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 4, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park and He, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the mass percentage of the first Si-based material relative to the active material in the first active material layer is 5-20 mass%. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 9, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the first Si-based material is less than or equal to a specific surface area of the second Si-based material.
However, He teaches a negative electrode (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, He teaches that the negative electrode comprises a current collector (10), a first active layer (11) provided on the current collector, and a second active layer (12) provided on the first active layer ([0034]). He teaches that the first active layer comprises a first silicon-based active material and graphite, and teaches that the second active layer comprises a second silicon-based active material and graphite ([0037]). He teaches that the first silicon-based active material has a specific surface area of 1.1-4.0 m2/g, and that the second silicon-based active material has a specific surface area of 1.1-4.0 m2/g ([0019]). In particular, He teaches that first silicon-based material having a specific surface area of 1.8 m2/g and the second silicon-based material having a specific surface area of 2.01 m2/g helps prevent cyclic expansion and increases battery energy density ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the negative electrode plate of Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, ensure that the first Si-based material has a specific surface area of 1.8 m2/g and the second Si-based has a specific surface area of 2.01 m2/g (“a specific surface area of the first silicon-based material is less than or equal to a specific surface area of the second silicon-based material”), as taught by He, given that such specific surface area would help prevent cyclic expansion and increase battery energy density.
Regarding Claim 10, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park and He, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 9), the specific surface area of the first Si-based material is 1.8 m2/g.
Claims 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan (EP 3886218), and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2021/0143414) and Park et al. (US 2022/0367864) and Yamamura (US 2013/0040199).
Regarding Claim 16, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, does not explicitly teach that a mass percentage of oxygen in the silicon oxide is 40-60%.
However, Yamamura teaches a negative electrode active material (Abstract, [0010]). Yamamura teaches that the negative electrode active material is a silicon oxide represented by SiOx (0 < x < 2) ([0027]). Yamamura teaches that a silicon oxide of this kind has a high theoretic capacity relating to absorption and desorption of lithium ions ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the negative electrode plate of Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, utilize SiOx (0 < x < 2), as taught by Yamamura, as the silicon oxide, given that a silicon oxide of this kind has a high theoretic capacity relating to absorption and desorption of lithium ions. Furthermore, using 28.09 g/mol as the approximate molar mass of silicon and using 16 g/mol as the approximate molar mass of oxygen (based on the periodic table of the elements), the mass percentage of oxygen in the SiOx (0 < x < 2) is approximately greater than 0% and less than 53% by mass. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 18, Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 17, as previously described.
Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, does not explicitly teach that a mass percentage of oxygen in the silicon oxide is less than or equal to 10%.
However, Yamamura teaches a negative electrode active material (Abstract, [0010]). Yamamura teaches that the negative electrode active material is a silicon oxide represented by SiOx (0 < x < 2) ([0027]). Yamamura teaches that a silicon oxide of this kind has a high theoretic capacity relating to absorption and desorption of lithium ions ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to the negative electrode plate of Duan, as modified by Guo and Park, utilize SiOx (0 < x < 2), as taught by Yamamura, as the silicon oxide, given that a silicon oxide of this kind has a high theoretic capacity relating to absorption and desorption of lithium ions. Furthermore, using 28.09 g/mol as the approximate molar mass of silicon and using 16 g/mol as the approximate molar mass of oxygen (based on the periodic table of the elements), the mass percentage of oxygen in the SiOx (0 < x < 2) is approximately greater than 0% and less than 53%. It is further noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights