DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/25/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5 are currently pending. Claims 6-12 are cancelled. The amended claim 1 does not overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-5 are rejected under the following 103 rejections.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2013/0089784) in view of Hwang et al (US 2017/0047584), and further in view of Kim (US 2017/0092932).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Cho et al discloses a negative electrode (anode) comprising: a negative active material (powder mass / anode active material), a conductive agent (conductive additive), a binder (resin binder); wherein the negative active material is a primary particle “100” (powder mass) comprising multiple Si nanowires intermixed with a crystalline carbonaceous core “110” (multiple graphene sheets); wherein the Si nanowires have an average diameter of about 30 to about 50 nm and an average length of about 1.5 µm and Si nanowires that are in an amount of 7.15 wt% based on the total weight of the carbonaceous core and the Si nanowires combined; wherein the Si nanowires contain 100 wt% of Si ([0060]); wherein the primary particle (powder mass) may be agglomerated to form secondary particles, wherein at least one of the secondary particles comprises a core and a shell embracing the core, wherein the core comprises a single graphene sheet “110” and a plurality of Si nanowires “120” and the graphene sheet and the Si nanowires are mutually bonded into the core; wherein the graphene refers to a single layer sheet of pristine graphene ([0048],[0051],[0072], [0075],[0099] and Fig. 1).
However, Cho et al does not expressly teach a shell comprising one or a plurality of graphene sheets (claim 1).
Hwang et al discloses a silicon-carbon composite including a core including a plurality of active particles and a first shell layer which is coated on the core and includes graphene, wherein the first shell layer is formed in a single-layered or multilayer structure including one or more graphene layers ([0035]-[0039],[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include a shell comprising one or a plurality of graphene sheets in order to improve the movement of lithium ions and the electrical conductivity of the active particles ([0065]).
However, Cho et al as modified by Hwang et al does not expressly teach a core that further comprises a conductive material selected from conducting polymer, carbon nanotube, coke, or a combination thereof (claim 1).
Kim discloses a composite electrode active material comprising a core that may additionally include a carbon-based material such as carbon black … carbon nanotube, … ([0079],[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho/Hwang negative active material to include a core that further comprises carbon nanotube in order to prevent a short circuit caused by cracks occurring during charging/discharging of the lithium-alloyable material ([0080]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use carbon nanotube.
Examiner’s note: it is noted that claim 1 is being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is obvious over the product of the prior art. The claim is obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims). Burden is on applicants to show difference in product comparison.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al does not expressly teach Si nanowires having a diameter from 10 nm to 40 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include Si nanowires having a diameter from 10 nm to 40 nm because in a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed diameter of the Si nanowires.
Regarding claim 3, Cho et al also discloses Si nanowires having at least a portion that may be linear, gently or sharply curved, or branched ([0060]).
However, Cho et al does not expressly Si nanowires that are curly having a radius of curvature from 100 nm to 10 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include Si nanowires that are curly having a radius of curvature from 100 nm to 10 µm because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In addition, Zhu et al (US 2018/0019468) discloses that during the lithiation (charging) and delithiation (discharging), the high surface curvature (i.e. small diameter) of the Si-nanowires provides a lower energy barrier for lithium insertion and allows for an easier release of mechanical stress due to lithium ions disrupting the silicon structure ([0006]). Therefore, the radius of curvature of the Si nanowires is known in the art as a result effective variable of optimizing the size to provide a lower energy barrier of lithium insertion as well as allowing for an easier release of mechanical stress due to lithium ions disrupting the silicon structure.
Regarding claim 4, the Office takes the position that the graphene sheets taught by Cho et al inherently contain pristine graphene material having less than 0.01% by weight of non-carbon elements.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2013/0089784) in view of Hwang et al (US 2017/0047584), and further in view of Gulas et al (US 2017/0200950).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Cho et al discloses a negative electrode (anode) comprising: a negative active material (powder mass / anode active material), a conductive agent (conductive additive), a binder (resin binder); wherein the negative active material is a primary particle “100” (powder mass) comprising multiple Si nanowires intermixed with a crystalline carbonaceous core “110” (multiple graphene sheets); wherein the Si nanowires have an average diameter of about 30 to about 50 nm and an average length of about 1.5 µm and Si nanowires that are in an amount of 7.15 wt% based on the total weight of the carbonaceous core and the Si nanowires combined; wherein the Si nanowires contain 100 wt% of Si ([0060]); wherein the primary particle (powder mass) may be agglomerated to form secondary particles, wherein at least one of the secondary particles comprises a core and a shell embracing the core, wherein the core comprises a single graphene sheet “110” and a plurality of Si nanowires “120” and the graphene sheet and the Si nanowires are mutually bonded into the core; wherein the graphene refers to a single layer sheet of pristine graphene ([0048],[0051],[0072],[0075],[0099] and Fig. 1).
However, Cho et al does not expressly teach a shell comprising one or a plurality of graphene sheets (claim 1).
Hwang et al discloses a silicon-carbon composite including a core including a plurality of active particles and a first shell layer which is coated on the core and includes graphene, wherein the first shell layer is formed in a single-layered or multilayer structure including one or more graphene layers ([0035]-[0039],[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include a shell comprising one or a plurality of graphene sheets in order to improve the movement of lithium ions and the electrical conductivity of the active particles ([0065]).
However, Cho et al as modified by Hwang et al does not expressly teach a core that further comprises a conductive material selected from conducting polymer, carbon nanotube, coke, or a combination thereof (claim 1).
Gulas et al discloses a core of the surface-modified carbonaceous particulate material (powder mass) that may be selected from natural graphite, synthetic graphite, exfoliated graphite, graphene, few-layer graphene, graphite fibers, nanographite, graphitized fine coke, or non-graphitic carbon, including hard carbon, carbon black, petroleum- or coal-based coke, glassy carbon, nanotubes, fullerenes, or mixtures thereof and alternatively, compositions comprising the carbonaceous particulate materials in a mixture with silicon ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho/Hwang negative active material to include a core that further comprises coke in order to select a carbonaceous particulate material that is tailored according to the needs of a specific application ([0048]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use coke.
Examiner’s note: it is noted that claim 1 is being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is obvious over the product of the prior art. The claim is obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims). Burden is on applicants to show difference in product comparison.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al does not expressly teach Si nanowires having a diameter from 10 nm to 40 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include Si nanowires having a diameter from 10 nm to 40 nm because in a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed diameter of the Si nanowires.
Regarding claim 3, Cho et al also discloses Si nanowires having at least a portion that may be linear, gently or sharply curved, or branched ([0060]).
However, Cho et al does not expressly Si nanowires that are curly having a radius of curvature from 100 nm to 10 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include Si nanowires that are curly having a radius of curvature from 100 nm to 10 µm because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In addition, Zhu et al (US 2018/0019468) discloses that during the lithiation (charging) and delithiation (discharging), the high surface curvature (i.e. small diameter) of the Si-nanowires provides a lower energy barrier for lithium insertion and allows for an easier release of mechanical stress due to lithium ions disrupting the silicon structure ([0006]). Therefore, the radius of curvature of the Si nanowires is known in the art as a result effective variable of optimizing the size to provide a lower energy barrier of lithium insertion as well as allowing for an easier release of mechanical stress due to lithium ions disrupting the silicon structure.
Regarding claim 4, the Office takes the position that the graphene sheets taught by Cho et al inherently contain pristine graphene material having less than 0.01% by weight of non-carbon elements.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2013/0089784) in view of Hwang et al (US 2017/0047584), and further in view of Kim et al (KR 20090011598 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Cho et al discloses a negative electrode (anode) comprising: a negative active material (powder mass / anode active material), a conductive agent (conductive additive), a binder (resin binder); wherein the negative active material is a primary particle “100” (powder mass) comprising multiple Si nanowires intermixed with a crystalline carbonaceous core “110” (multiple graphene sheets); wherein the Si nanowires have an average diameter of about 30 to about 50 nm and an average length of about 1.5 µm and Si nanowires that are in an amount of 7.15 wt% based on the total weight of the carbonaceous core and the Si nanowires combined; wherein the Si nanowires contain 100 wt% of Si ([0060]); wherein the primary particle (powder mass) may be agglomerated to form secondary particles, wherein at least one of the secondary particles comprises a core and a shell embracing the core, wherein the core comprises a single graphene sheet “110” and a plurality of Si nanowires “120” and the graphene sheet and the Si nanowires are mutually bonded into the core; wherein the graphene refers to a single layer sheet of pristine graphene ([0048],[0051],[0072],[0075],[0099] and Fig. 1).
However, Cho et al does not expressly teach a shell comprising one or a plurality of graphene sheets (claim 1).
Hwang et al discloses a silicon-carbon composite including a core including a plurality of active particles and a first shell layer which is coated on the core and includes graphene, wherein the first shell layer is formed in a single-layered or multilayer structure including one or more graphene layers ([0035]-[0039],[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include a shell comprising one or a plurality of graphene sheets in order to improve the movement of lithium ions and the electrical conductivity of the active particles ([0065]).
However, Cho et al as modified by Hwang et al does not expressly teach a core that further comprises a conductive material selected from conducting polymer, carbon nanotube, coke, or a combination thereof (claim 1).
Kim et al discloses an electrode active material (powder mass) having a core-shell structure, wherein the core is selected from … coke, … (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho/Hwang negative active material to include a core that further comprises coke in order to provide a high capacity battery by preventing the initial capacity from being degraded (Abstract). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use coke.
Examiner’s note: it is noted that claim 1 is being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is obvious over the product of the prior art. The claim is obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims). Burden is on applicants to show difference in product comparison.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al does not expressly teach Si nanowires having a diameter from 10 nm to 40 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include Si nanowires having a diameter from 10 nm to 40 nm because in a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed diameter of the Si nanowires.
Regarding claim 3, Cho et al also discloses Si nanowires having at least a portion that may be linear, gently or sharply curved, or branched ([0060]).
However, Cho et al does not expressly Si nanowires that are curly having a radius of curvature from 100 nm to 10 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho negative active material to include Si nanowires that are curly having a radius of curvature from 100 nm to 10 µm because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In addition, Zhu et al (US 2018/0019468) discloses that during the lithiation (charging) and delithiation (discharging), the high surface curvature (i.e. small diameter) of the Si-nanowires provides a lower energy barrier for lithium insertion and allows for an easier release of mechanical stress due to lithium ions disrupting the silicon structure ([0006]). Therefore, the radius of curvature of the Si nanowires is known in the art as a result effective variable of optimizing the size to provide a lower energy barrier of lithium insertion as well as allowing for an easier release of mechanical stress due to lithium ions disrupting the silicon structure.
Regarding claim 4, the Office takes the position that the graphene sheets taught by Cho et al inherently contain pristine graphene material having less than 0.01% by weight of non-carbon elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “The combination of the Cho, Hwang, and Kim references does not obviate claims 1-5. The combination of the prior references does not show or suggest the remaining claim limitations with -- wherein said core further comprises a conductive material selected from conducting polymer, carbon nanotube, coke, or a combination thereof”.
In response, the Office disagrees that the combination of the prior references does not show or suggest the remaining claim limitations with -- wherein said core further comprises a conductive material selected from conducting polymer, carbon nanotube, coke, or a combination thereof. As stated above in the 103 rejection, Kim discloses a composite electrode active material comprising a core that may additionally include a carbon-based material such as carbon nanotube (see [0079],[0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Cho/Hwang negative active material to include a core that further comprises carbon nanotube in order to prevent a short circuit caused by cracks occurring during charging/discharging of the lithium-alloyable material (see [0080]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights