Battery Having a Solid-Electrolyte Interface Layer at an Interface of Negative Electrode Composite Particles and Electrolyte
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 16-21, 23-26 and 28-32 are pending and being examined in this office action.
Remarks
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 23 and 31 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 23 recites the limitation "said one or more elements …". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the one or more elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 23 and 31 are not be treated on the merits in this office action due to the lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16-21, 24-26, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musha et al. (US 20050208379 A1, hereafter Musha), as evidenced by Stijin et al. (WO 2016102208 A1, hereafter Stijin) and Nechev et al. (WO 2017103641 A1, hereafter Nechev).
Regarding claims 16-20 and 25, Musha teaches a lithium ion battery (“lithium secondary”, [0021]) comprising a negative electrode (at least: [0009]) and an electrolyte (at least: [0026], [0098], [0121]),
wherein the negative electrode comprises composite particles (See, e.g., “7” in Fig. 2) having a layer on their surface (“4”, Fig. 2), and the composite particles may be mixed particles containing silicon and carbon ([0038]), which reads on the claimed “the composite particles comprise silicon-based domains and a matrix material in which the silicon-based domains are embedded”. That is, the silicon particles as domains are embedded in the carbon matrix.
The claimed SEI layer as claimed is well known in the battery field to be formed at an interface between electrolyte and electrode active material particles (e.g., silicon) via their reaction ([0026]). This is generally knowledge in the art, as evidenced by one of numerous prior arts (Stijin, p2, paragraph 5).
Musha further teaches said electrolyte comprises ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) ([0121]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that other equivalents, such as vinyl carbonates (VC) or/and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), can be used as an alternative in the electrolyte. This is evidenced by one of numerous prior arts, Nechev (P9, bottom paragraph). Substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Since Musha as modified teaches substantially the same negative electrode and electrolyte as claimed, it is reasonably expected that the formed SEI layer has the same claimed characteristics:
wherein the SEI layer comprises one or more compounds having carbon-carbon chemical bonds and one or more compounds having carbon-oxygen chemical,
wherein a ratio for the SEI layer, defined as the area of a first peak divided by the area of a second peak, is at least 1.30, wherein the first peak and second peak are peaks in an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy measurement of the SEI layer, whereby the first peak represents C-C chemical bonds and is centered at 284.33 eV and whereby the second peak represents C-O chemical bonds and is centered at 285.83 eV, and
wherein said ratio is at least 1.60.
Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01, I. The burden is shifted to applicant to show that the prior art product does not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. It is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the burden is on the applicant is the same. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Musha teaches the battery according to claim 16, wherein said negative electrode further comprises Fe, for example ([0039]).
Regarding claim 26, Musha as modified teaches the battery according to claim 16, and does not disclose any other elements than Si and O in the SiOx domains, reading on “the silicon-based domains contain less than 10 weight% of elements other than Si and O” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 30, Musha as modified teaches a process of cycling the battery of claim 16, comprising applying electrochemical cycles to said battery (See “charge/discharge cycle”, [0032]).
Regarding claim 32, Musha as modified teaches said layer comprises Ni, for example (“nickel”, [0029]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musha as modified, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 103887502 A, whose English machine translation is being used for citation purposes, hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 28, Musha as modified teaches the battery according to claim 16, but is silent as to the matrix material comprising at least 50 wt% of pitch or thermally decomposed pitch, as instantly claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses an anode (equivalent to the instantly claimed negative electrode) material comprises, for example, coal tar soft pitch and an additive silicon oxide (i.e., silica) with a weight ratio of 5:1 to 50:1 (See at least Abstract, [0009]-[0010]). A battery prepared by using this anode material “have excellent comprehensive properties, stable structure, and good safety performance” (at least Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further include a coal tar soft pitch in the composite particles of Musha with a weight ratio of the coal tar soft pitch to silicon oxide being 5:1 to 50:1 in the negative electrode, as taught by Li, in order to achieve “excellent comprehensive properties, stable structure and good safety performance” (at least Abstract of Li). As a result, the instantly claimed at least 50 wt% overlaps the above ratio of 5:1 to 50:1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musha as modified, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Suguro et al. (US 20150118548 A1, hereafter Suguro).
Regarding claim 29, Musha as modified teaches the battery according to claim 16, but appears silent as to a d50 value of the silicon-based domains as instantly claimed. However, in the absence of evidence that a particular d50 value is significant, a selection of a d50 value as claimed would be an obvious matter of design choice and involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, Suguro discloses silicon-based negative electrode active material particles have an average d50 value of 5 nm ([0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used the silicon-based material with an average d50 value of 5 nm in Musha, as taught by Suguro, since the selection of a d50 value as claimed would be an obvious matter of design choice and involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. As such, d50=5 nm reads on the claimed range of “at most 150 nm”.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights