DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-23 are presented for examination, wherein claim 1 is currently amended; claims 11-12 and 15-22 are withdrawn; plus, claim 23 is newly added. Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-10 is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claim 1, from which the other claims depend.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-10 over Hong is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claim 1, from which the other claims depend.
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
Newly added claim 23 is objected to because the limitations “0D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in three dimensions,” “1D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in two dimensions,” and “planar 2D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in one dimension” (ll. 6-8) are additionally claimed with the limitation “a carbon mixture” (line 5).
However, the carbon mixture is further defined as “the carbon mixture includes standard anode carbon and approximately 5% of a mixture of the 0D conductive carbon particles, the 1D conductive carbon particles, and the 2D conductive carbon particles.”
The support for the newly added claim provides said “carbon mixture” is standard anode carbon, with a 5% portion thereof substituted, as follows.
[0041] FIG. 5 is a plot of galvanostatic cycling performance of standard and ternary conductive carbon additive anodes, in accordance with an example embodiment of the disclosure. The plot compares the cycling performance of a control anode with a non-standard anode where 5% of the standard anode carbon is replaced with a mixture of a 0D carbon (SP), 1D carbon (carbon fiber), and 2D carbon (graphene) with a ratio of 1:1:1. The result shows that the addition of the ternary carbon mixture has improved performance compared to the control anode even after only a few cycles.
(Instant specification, at e.g. ¶0041, emphasis added).
The “0D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in three dimensions,” “1D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in two dimensions,” “planar 2D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in one dimension” should be claimed as part of the “carbon mixture” and not separate elements from said carbon mixture.
Appropriate correction is respectfully 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 23 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2 and 5-10 depend, plus newly added claim 23 severably recite “approximately” in “approximately 5% of a mixture.” While there is support for 5% in a “carbon mixture includes a standard anode carbon and…5% of a mixture of a 0D conductive carbon particles, 1D conductive carbon particles, and 2D conductive carbon particles” (instant specification, at e.g. ¶0041), there does not appear to be support for the scope of the limitation “approximately” in said “carbon mixture includes a standard anode carbon and approximately 5% a mixture of a 0D conductive carbon particles, 1D conductive carbon particles, and 2D conductive carbon particles” (emphasis added), noting that “approximately” broadens the scope of the amount “5%” to a range.
Respectfully, the Remarks cites ¶¶ 0030 and 41 plus Figures 4-6 as support. However, a review of said paragraphs and figures plus a further review of the entire initial disclosure does not appear to provide such support.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 23 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.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2 and 5-10 depend, recites the newly added limitation “the carbon mixture” (emphasis added, cf newly added claim 23, which incorporates the limitation “a carbon mixture” in line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, from which claims 2 and 5-10 depend, plus newly added claim 23 severably recite “approximately” in “approximately 5% of a mixture.” While the instant specification provides for 5% in a “carbon mixture includes a standard anode carbon and…5% of a mixture of a 0D conductive carbon particles, 1D conductive carbon particles, and 2D conductive carbon particles” (instant specification, at e.g. ¶0041), there does not appear to be guidance for how broad/narrow the scope of range provided by the limitation “approximately” should be interpreted in said “carbon mixture includes a standard anode carbon and approximately 5% a mixture of a 0D conductive carbon particles, 1D conductive carbon particles, and 2D conductive carbon particles” (emphasis added).
It unclear as to what is intended to be the as the lower and upper endpoints of what is within the scope of “approximately 5%.” Examples of such indefiniteness of what might be lower and upper endpoints include e.g. “4.0-6.0,” “4.9-5.1,” and “4.95-5.05.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 claims “the 0D, 1D, and 2D particles comprise between 1% and 40% of the active material” (emphasis added). However, independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, includes “silicon of between 50% to 95%” and the newly added limitation “the carbon mixture includes standard anode carbon and approximately 5% of a mixture of the 0D conductive carbon particles, the 1D conductive carbon particles, and the 2D conductive carbon particles.”
Assuming no other components, said “carbon mixture” is the balance of the claimed anode active material, which calculates so that said “carbon mixture” is 5% to 50% of the claimed anode active material (lower endpoint: 100%-95% = 5% & upper endpoint: 100%-50% = 50%).
As a result, the “approximately 5% of said “carbon mixture” (i.e. said calculated 5-50%), which is said “mixture of the 0D conductive carbon particles, the 1D conductive carbon particles, and the 2D conductive carbon particles,” may be calculated to be:
approximately 5% of said calculated 5% to 50% of the claimed anode active material =
approximately 0.25% to approximately 2.5% of the claimed anode active material.
As a result, the lower endpoint of the claimed range of claim 2 is broader than that of the newly added limitation of independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Newly added claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (US 2020/0411901, provisional filed June 26, 2019, citations to the provisional specification).
Regarding newly added independent claim 23, Dong teaches a lithium ion battery comprising:
a positive electrode;
a negative electrode comprising from about 75 wt% to about 92 wt% of a mixed negative electrode active material, from about 1 wt% to about 7 wt% nanoscale conductive carbon, and from about 6 wt % to about 20 wt% polymer binder;
a separator between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; and,
a liquid electrolyte comprising about 1M to about 2 M lithium salt and non-aqueous solvent,
wherein said mixed negative electrode active material comprising from about 35 wt% to about 95 wt% silicon oxide-based material, which may be SiOx, wherein x<2, and from about 5 wt% to about 65 wt% graphite,
said nanoscale conductive carbon may comprise a combination of Super-P carbon black/nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, and graphene plates
(e.g. 2:2-11, 5:2-26, 7:5-21, 10:13-11:5, 17:22, 27:15-26, 28:3-22, 31:12-31), reading on “battery,” said battery comprising:
(1) said positive electrode (e.g. supra), reading on “a cathode,”
(2) said liquid electrolyte comprising about 1M to about 2 M lithium salt and non-aqueous solvent (e.g. supra), reading on “an electrolyte;” and,
(3) said negative electrode comprising from about 75 wt% to about 92 wt% of said mixed negative electrode active material (e.g. supra), reading on “an anode comprising an active material,”
wherein said negative electrode comprising from about 75 wt% to about 92 wt% of said mixed negative electrode active material; and, said mixed active material comprises from about 35 wt% to about 95 wt% silicon oxide-based material, which may be SiOx, wherein x<2 (e.g. supra),
said silicon oxide-based material may be calculated to be e.g. from about 26.25% to about 87.4% of said negative electrode, and noting a stoichiometric ratio of said oxide to said silicon in said silicon oxide-based material is <2 (SiOx, x<2), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the active material comprising: silicon of between 50% to 95%;”
wherein said negative electrode comprising from about 75 wt% to about 92 wt% of said mixed negative electrode active material; and, said mixed active material comprises from about 5 wt% to about 65 wt% graphite (e.g. supra), said graphite may be calculated to be from about 3.75 wt% to about 59.8 wt% of said negative electrode; and,
from about 6 wt % to about 20 wt% polymer binder (e.g. supra),
a combination of said graphite and said polymer binder may be calculated to be e.g. from about 9.75 wt% to about 79.8 wt%, noting both graphite and polymer binder are severably “carbon” and “standard anode carbon,”
said combination of said graphite and said polymer binder reading on “the active material comprising…a carbon mixture” and “the carbon mixture includes standard anode carbon;” and,
wherein said negative electrode comprising said nanoscale conductive carbon, which may comprise said combination of Super-P carbon black/nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, and graphene plates (e.g. supra), reading on “the active material comprising: …0D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in three dimensions; 1D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in two dimensions; and planar 2D conductive carbon particles with nanoscale structure in one dimension,”
wherein said negative electrode comprising from about 1 wt% to about 7 wt% nanoscale conductive carbon; and, said combination of said graphite and said polymer binder may be calculated to be e.g. from about 9.75 wt% to about 79.8 wt% (e.g. supra), said nanoscale conductive carbon may be calculated to be e.g. about 1.23 wt% to about 41.3 wt%, or about 1.23 wt% to about 9.30 wt%, of a mixture of said nanoscale conductive carbon, said graphite, and said polymer binder (e.g. [~1 wt% / (~1 wt% + ~79.8 wt%) = ~1.23% wt%]; [~7 wt% / (~7 wt% + ~9.95 wt%) = ~41.3 wt%]; and, [~1 wt% / (~1 wt% + ~9.95 wt%) = ~9.30 wt%]), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the carbon mixture includes standard anode carbon and approximately 5% of a mixture of the 0D conductive carbon particles, the 1D conductive carbon particles, and the 2D conductive carbon particles.”
Prior Art
None of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed invention of claim 1, from which claims 2 and 5-10 depend, specifically the claimed battery wherein the battery includes the specifically claimed anode active material compositions, amounts thereof, and the relationships of the claimed 0D, 1D, and 2D materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges
Hong does not disclose or suggest the battery of amended claim 1. In particular, Hong provides a limited general description of several carbon nanoparticles, and that they may be presented in different combinations. See, e.g., Hong at para. 18, 19 and 36; see also, the Office Action at 4. However, Hong is silent as to any relative composition of the standard anode carbon and the mixture of nanoparticles types within the battery.
Accordingly, Hong does not disclose or suggest “the carbon mixture includes standard anode carbon and approximately 5% of a mixture of the GD conductive carbon particles, the 1D conductive carbon particles, and the 2D conductive carbon particles” as recited in amended claim 1. For at least this reason, Hong fails to disclose or suggest the battery of amended claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom are not unpatentable over Hong and are allowable. The Applicant also reserves the right to argue additional reasons beyond those set forth above to support the allowability of claim 1 and its dependent claims.
(Remarks, at pp. 7:2-8:1).
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al (US 2021/0175488);
Rohani et al (US 2021/0114886);
Choi et al (US 2020/0280059);
Kim et al (US 2020/0161634);
Zhamu et al (US 2019/0273249);
Lee et al (US 2019/0273247);
Moon et al (US 2019/0233294);
Salem et al (US 2019/0214640);
Son et al (US 2019/0207221);
Zhamu et al (US 2019/0173079);
Yushin et a (US 2019/0123339);
Ghezelbash et al (US 2018/0248175);
Moon et al (US 2018/0145316);
Schauer et al (US 2018/0138514);
Son et al (US 2018/0083272);
Kawakami et al (US 2017/0352864);
Ogata et al (US 2017/0346078);
Burshtain et al (US 2017/0207451);
Kim et al (US 2016/0359162);
Jeon et al (US 2016/0315311);
Fang et al (US 2016/0285084);
Laicer et al (US 2016/0049656);
Hong et al (US 2015/0311504);
Ogino et al (US 2015/0132649);
Son et al (US 2015/0093648);
Mangolini et al (US 2014/0295269);
Zhang et al (US 2014/0186701);
Park et al (US 2014/0050984); and,
Zhamu et al (US 2010/0143798).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights