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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 19, 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0168900).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Jang discloses an anode electrode comprising multiple particulates, wherein each particulate comprises a graphene shell and a carbon foam core, wherein the carbon foam core contains one or a plurality of porous primary particles of an anode active material, such as silicon or silicon oxide, residing in pores of the carbon foam, and wherein the primary particles can be coated with graphene sheets prior to depositing them in the carbon foam core (Paragraphs 0093, 0130). It would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art that foam is flexible. Additionally, Jang discloses that the particulate can be formed using spray drying (Paragraph 0144), which would be known to randomly distribute the particles throughout the carbon foam. Thus, more than one silicon particle could be formed in the pores of the carbon matrix and due to the spray drying the adjacent particles and carbon matrix material would be contacting one another to form interstitial gaps. Jang also states that the porous carbon matrix is reinforced with a high-strength material selected from carbon nanotubes, polymer fibrils, graphene sheets, etc. and that the high-strength materials are dispersed into a polymer (Paragraph 0024). Thus, the carbon matrix material would comprise a polymer. Finally, Jang discloses that the carbon foam is in physical contact with or chemically bonded to both the encapsulating layer and the primary particles of anode active material in order to maintain electronic and ionic conductivity (Paragraphs 0019). As to claims 2 and 3, Jang teaches that the silicon particles can have the formula SiOx, wherein 0<x<2, and that the silicon particles have a diameter of 2 nm to 20 µm (Paragraphs 0092, 0153). Regarding claims 5 and 6, Jang states that the thickness of the layer of graphene sheets coated on the primary particles is 1 nm to 10 µm, preferably 5-100 nm (Paragraph 0130). As to claim 20, Jang discloses a method of forming the particulate described above comprising: dispersing primary particles of an anode active material, which may be coated with graphene sheets, in a polymer-solvent solution to form a slurry, and spray drying to form anode active particles embedded in a polymer matrix (Paragraph 0170). Regarding claim 25, Jang teaches that the anode electrode can also comprise a binder and conductive agent in addition to the composite particulates (Paragraph 0093).
Jang fails to specifically teach that the number of graphene sheets coating the primary particles is greater than three, and that the composite material is spherical and has a shape factor of between 6 and 7 inclusive.
Jang teaches that the thickness of the layer of graphene sheets coated on the primary particles is 1 nm to 10 µm, preferably 5-100 nm (Paragraph 0130). Jang shows in the Figures that it is desired for the composite particles to have a spherical shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the silicon particles of Jang could have more than 3 sheets of graphene coated on them because based on the known thickness of a graphene sheet, the thickness of the graphene layer taught about would be large enough to fit many graphene sheets. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composite particulates of Jang could be spherical, as recited in claims 20 and 25, because the Figures of Jang show this and a milling process used in Jang would result in round particulates. Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a shape factor of a sphere would be around 6. Thus, the spherical particulates of Jang would have a similar shape factor.
4. Claim(s) 8, 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0168900) in view of Do (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0255785).
The teachings of Jang have been discussed in paragraph 3 above.
Jang fails to disclose that the graphene content amounts to 1 to 85 wt% of the overall porous composite particulate, and that the conductive additive particles amount to 0.5 to 30 wt% of the overall porous composite material.
Do discloses a nanographitic composite for use an anode in a lithium ion battery, the composite comprising electroactive material particles, and a coating layer comprising a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets on the electroactive particles (Paragraph 0011). Do also discloses that the silicon electroactive material particles are present in an amount of 5-90 wt% of the composite (Paragraph 0021), which would result in the graphene being present in a range of somewhere between 10 and 95 wt%, as recited in claim 8 of the present invention. Do teaches that the composite can also comprise a conductive carbon additive, such as carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes or carbon black (Paragraphs 0022-0023), as recited in claim 10 of the present invention. Do also teaches that the conductive additives are added to starting materials at the beginning of the process of forming the nanocomposite (Paragraph 0102), as recited in claim 21 of the present invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the amount of graphene coating the silicon particles of Jang could be between 1 and 85 wt% of the composite because Do teaches that it is desired for a large percentage of the composite to be made of silicon particles, leaving a smaller range for graphene and other components of the composite. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of the conductive additive could be in an amount of 0.5 to 30 wt% of the composite material because Do teaches the desire for the silicon particles to make up a large percentage of the composite for improved properties, which leaves smaller percentage for the graphene, additives and remaining parts of the composite.
5. Claim(s) 7, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0168900) in view of Hwang (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0047584).
The teachings of Jang have been discussed in paragraph 3 above. Jang also teaches that the ratio of the pore volume to the solid volume of the particulate is 0.3/1.0 to 20/1.0 (Paragraph 0093). This could result in a pore volume percentage between 10 and 50 vol%, as recited in claim 15 of the present invention.
Jang fails to disclose that the silicon particles amount to 10 to 95 wt% of the overall porous composite particulate, that the carbon foam amounts to 0.5 to 50 wt% of the overall porous composite particulate, that the average particle diameter of the porous composite material particulate is 1 to 30 µm, and that the pores have an average maximal linear extent of 1.7 to 300 nm.
Hwang discloses a porous silicon-carbon composite used as a negative electrode active material comprising: a core including a plurality of active particles, such as silicon, a conductive material formed as a network around the active particles, and a shell layer including graphene coated on the core (Paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0045). Hwang also discloses that the active particles are present in an amount of 10 to 95 wt% based on a total weight of the core (Paragraph 0044), as recited in claim 7 of the present invention. Hwang teaches that the conductive material can be present in an amount of 1 to 30 wt% of the total weight of the porous silicon-carbon composite (Paragraph 0047), as recited in claim 11 of the present invention. Hwang also teaches that pores are formed between the active particles and that they have a diameter of 50-500 nm (Paragraph 0053), as recited in claim 15 of the present invention. Hwang states that the average particle diameter of the core including the active particles, conductive material and pores is 0.5 to 50 µm (Paragraph 0056), as recited in claim 14 of the present invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the amount of the silicon particles and the carbon foam used in Jang could fall within the ranges taught by Hwang because Hwang teaches that these amounts allow for the particulate to accurately account for expansion of the silicon particles during charging of the battery. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if thin layers of graphene were present on the surfaces of the silicon particles, the percentage of the particles and carbon foam would still fall within the ranges of the claims due to the large ranges taught by Hwang. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the average particle diameter of the particulate of Jang could be 1 to 30 µm because Hwang teaches that a plurality of nanometer sized silicon particles in a carbon matrix result in particulates with this size that efficiently account for swelling of the silicon particles. Finally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pores of Jang could have an average maximal linear extent of 1.7 to 300 nm because Hwang teaches that a desired size of a pore in this type of composite is 50-500 nm so that it can appropriately account for the expansion of the silicon particles during charging.
6. Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0168900) in view of Pan (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0241032).
The teachings of Jang have been discussed in paragraph 3 above.
Jang fails to disclose that the shell is formed by dispersing the composite material formed from the spray drying in a second mixed solution of a conductive material and drying the second mixed solution, wherein the drying is conducted in a vacuum at a temperature less than 350 °C.
Pan discloses an anode active material for a lithium battery comprising high elasticity polymer encapsulated particles of an anode active material, such as silicon (Paragraph 0016). Pan also discloses that the polymer shell is formed by dispersing the silicon particles in a polymer solution and spray drying to form the encapsulated particles followed by heating a temperature of 75-100 °C (Paragraph 0081, 0084), as recited in claims 22 and 23 of the present invention. Pan teaches that a drying heating is performed in a vacuum (Paragraph 0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the formed the shell of Jang by dispersing the composite particles in a second solution, spray drying and then drying at a temperature less than 350 °C because Pan teaches that this method fully encapsulates a silicon composite material with a carbon coating without the need for milling.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants also argue that Jang fails to disclose a flexible conductive network material configured to maintain contact during expansion or retraction of plurality of individual silicon particles, and including a polymer material, the polymer material comprising a lithium ion conductive polymer. Applicants continue to argue that the high-strength materials of Jang are solely for mechanical reinforcement and there is no teaching of them being electrically or ionically conductive and maintaining electrical contact during expansion and contraction. Jang teaches in paragraph 0024 that the high-strength materials are dispersed in a polymer to make a polymer composite. Thus, the base of the carbon foam is a polymer. Additionally, Jang teaches in paragraph 0019 that the carbon foam electronically and/or ionically connects the encapsulating layer and the primary particles of the anode active material by being in physical contact with both during expansion and contraction. Therefore, Jang teaches that the carbon foam is electronically and ionically conductive and that it maintains contact with both the anode particles and the encapsulating layer during expansion and contraction of the particles.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722