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 Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-18 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, and 8 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are under examination.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel et al. (U.S. PGPub US 20140287315 A1 as previously relied upon), hereinafter Troegel, in view of Murata et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2015/0303460 (A1)), hereinafter Murata, in view of Mason et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2021/0276875 A1), hereinafter Mason, in view of Saito et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2011/0052953 A1), hereinafter Saito, in view of Zhang et al. (Effect of Mesh Number of Wood Powder and Ratio of Raw Materials on Properties of Composite Material of Starch/Wood Powder (2015) BioResources 10 (3), 5356-5368), hereinafter Zhang, or in the alternative, in view of Min (CN110690449 (A) and using Machine Translation as English version), hereinafter Min.
Regarding claim 1, Troegel teaches a method for producing a silicon carbon composite negative electrode active material (i.e., process for producing a Si/C composite as disclosed in the Abstract, also see Title, [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0040], [0134], Examples 1-3) for a lithium secondary battery (i.e., for use as an anode material in a lithium-ion batteries [abstract], having improved electrochemical properties [0187], also see [0177]),
the method comprising: obtaining a carbon material from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0050] whereby the conversion of lignin and optionally other C precursors into inorganic carbon for producing the Si/C composites of the invention is preferably brought about thermally by anaerobic carbonization, etc., such that C precursor can be selected as wood as disclosed in [0010], also see [0033] and [0036]-[0037] regarding lignin as a constituent of coniferous timbers, timbers from broad-leafed trees, etc., and obtaining said lignin through digestion processes, etc., as disclosed in [0034]-[0037], and lacking any further distinction thereof as to said wood-based raw-material).
Troegel further discloses mixing the carbon material in a solvent to produce a mixture, and adding silicon-based particles to the mixture (i.e., silicon-based active material dispersed in a dispersion or a solution of lignin as disclosed in [0043], also see Examples 1-3 and [0023]-[0024] with regards to said silicon-based particles) (Note: the prior art Troegel recognizes lignin is known to come from wood, and furthermore recognizes a solution of lignin is interpreted as lignin added into a solvent which would form a mixture where then the silicon-based particles are added, such as disclosed in [0042] whereby a silicon-based active material can be subjected to high energy milling together with lignin and with water or organic solvent, etc., also see [0073]-[0074]).
Troegel further discloses in [0050] the conversion of lignin and optionally other C precursors into inorganic carbon for producing the Si/C composites of the invention is preferably brought about thermally by anaerobic carbonization, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0053] the atmosphere used consists of an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon, etc., which at least provides heat-treating the silicon-carbon mixture in an inert atmosphere to obtain a silicon-carbon composite negative-electrode active material, lacking any further distinction thereof (also see [0050]-[0066], [0073]-[0074]).
Although Troegel is silent regarding the further step of “double-boiling the mixture to produce a silicon-carbon mixture”, since the instant application’s specification (see [00104]) discloses the step of double-boiling is performed to remove the solvent via evaporation, leaving the carbon-silicon composite material recoverable, and Troegel discloses in [0044-0045] the formation of the composite carbon-silicon material by removal of the solvent via evaporation under reduced pressure, and or precipitation and filtration of the solvent, etc., this at least provides the material produced by Troegel will be identical at this stage in the procedure to the material as claimed, and the evaporation under reduced pressure is serving the same function as the claimed “double-boiling”, lacking any further distinction thereof, Troegel meets the requirements of the claimed limitation.
Troegel further discloses in [0038]-[0039] apart from lignin, further C precursors can also be introduced, in admixture or separately in succession, into the composite, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0040] the C precursors can be present in admixture, in molecularly linked form (e.g., copolymers), etc., (also see [0041], [0048]). For example, Troegel discloses in [0039] three possible precursors can be (but are not limited to the groups of materials mentioned) and include organic polymers such as polystyrene, polyacrylonitrile, silicones, etc.
Troegel further discloses in [0042] the silicon-based active material can be subjected to high-energy milling together with lignin, etc., and further discloses in [0061] the Si/C composite powders obtained in this way can be used in the further electrode preparation or be after-treated mechanically, e.g., by milling and sieving processes, etc. (also see [0107]-[0109]), which at least provides crushing the wood-based raw-material, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that high-energy milling at least provides crushing, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said crushing.
Troegel further discloses performing a carbonizing heat-treatment on the crushed wood-based raw-material in an inert atmosphere (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0042] whereby high-energy milling at least provides crushing as discussed above and Troegel further discloses in [0050] a detailed the synthesis of the Si/C composite material using anerobic carbonization, etc., such that as disclosed in [0052] said carbonization is carried out at elevated temperature, and as disclosed in [0053] said atmosphere used consists of an inert gas, etc.).
Troegel further discloses in [0010] that the wood-based carbon precursor can in one embodiment include alkali metal lignosulfonate, whereby as disclosed in [0008] of Troegel, such oxidative activation reactions like those that produce alkali lignosulfonate, are necessary to convert portions of the electrochemically inactive silicon to active silicon oxide, which augments the capacity of the resulting composite material, whereby as disclosed in [0037] the lignin can be used, for example, as a derivative as lignosulfonate or as a metal lignosulfonate, etc. Troegel further discloses in [0138] the washing of the wood-based material to obtain the carbon material, etc. (also See Examples 2-7).
Therefore, Troegel in one or more embodiments at least provides performing an activation treatment on the wood-based raw-material (see [0138] for example, etc.), and then washing the wood-based raw-material to obtain the carbon material (see [0138] for example, etc.).
However, Troegel is silent as to mixing a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and octadecyl isocyanate in a solvent to produce a mixture. Furthermore, Troegel is silent as to the carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and the octadecyl isocyanate are mixed with each other in a weight ratio in a range of 1:0.2 to 1:0.6. Furthermore, Troegel is silent as to performing a steam activation treatment on the wood-based raw-material subjected to the carbonizing heat-treatment, and then washing the wood-based raw-material to obtain the carbon material. Furthermore, Troegel is silent as to a compound containing an octadecyl isocyanate functional group. Furthermore, Troegel is silent as to crushing the wood-based raw-material into a size of 80 mesh or smaller.
Murata teaches method for producing negative electrode material for lithium ion batteries (Title). Murata further teaches in [0060]-[0061] subjecting a carbon particle (B) to surface treatment with an oxidizing agent and then removing a residue of the oxidizing agent, modifying the carbon particle (B) from which the residue of the oxidizing agent has been removed with a silane coupling agent, modifying a particle (A) comprising an element capable of occluding and releasing a lithium ion with a silane coupling agent, and linking the modified carbon particle (B) and the modified particle (A) via a chemical bond, etc. Murata further teaches in [0062] the particle (A) used in the method for producing a negative electrode comprises a substance comprising an element capable of occluding and releasing a lithium ion, whereby the particle (A) refers to one other than a carbon particle (B), etc., such that examples of preferable element include Si, and the particle (A) may be an elementary substance of one of these elements, or may be a compound, etc. (also see [0063]-[0069]). Murata further teaches in [0088]-[0091] the carbon particle (B) comprises a carbonaceous material with its crystal underdeveloped, etc., whereby as a raw material to prepare the carbonaceous material a substance derived from resin such as phenolic resins, cellulose resins, or a substance derived from plant such as a coconut shell, broad leaf trees, bamboo charcoal, needle leaf trees, etc., such that the method for producing the carbonaceous material comprises subjecting the raw material to carbonization treatment in an inert atmosphere at preferably not lower than 800°C and lower than 2000°C, etc., which at least provides a carbon material obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said carbonaceous material obtained by subjecting, for example coconut shell, broad leaf trees, bamboo charcoal, needle leaf trees, etc., to said carbonization treatment at least provides said carbon material, lacking any further distinction thereof.
Murata further teaches in [0102] the carbon particle (B) is first subjected to surface treatment with an oxidizing agent, whereby this surface treatment achieves introduction of mainly a hydroxy group onto the surface of the carbon particle (B), etc., such that as taught in [0103] the oxidizing agent for use in the method according to the present invention is not particularly limited, etc., such that the surface treatment with the oxidizing agent can be followed by separation of an excess oxidizing agent and washing with water, etc., which at least provides performing an activation treatment on the wood-based raw-material subjected to the carbonizing heat-treatment, and then washing the wood-based raw-material to obtain the carbon material.
Murata further teaches in [0094] at the linkage point between the particle (A) and the carbon particle (B), a chemical bond is present, whereby the chemical bond is preferably at least one selected from the group consisting of a urethane bond, etc., whereby as taught in [0095] the urethane bond is the bond represented by (-NH-(C=O)-O-), such that the urethane bond is formed, for example, by condensation of an isocyanate group and a hydroxy group, etc., such that as taught in [0109] this reaction can be conducted by stirring the carbon particle (B) containing the functional group and the particle (A) containing the functional group in a solvent, etc. (also see [0096], [0100], [0105]), which at least provides mixing a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment as discussed above) and a compound containing an isocyanate (i.e., at least compound containing isocyanate group so as to form a urethane bond, etc.) in a solvent to produce a mixture.
Murata further teaches in [0106] modification with such a silane coupling agent can achieve introduction of a functional group that can serve as a base of a chemical bond onto the surface of the carbon particle (B), whereby the functional group to be introduced is not particularly limited provided that it chemically bonds with a functional group introduced into the particle (A) and is preferably an isocyanate group that is highly reactive, etc., whereby the amount of the functional group to be introduced is not particularly limited and is preferably 1 to 20 parts by mass in terms of the amount of the silane coupling agent to be used, relative to 100 parts by mass of the carbon particle (B), etc., which at least provides a weight ratio range of 5 to 100 (i.e., 100/20 to 100/1), which is a weight ratio range that overlaps the claimed range of a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and an isocyanate compound are mixed with each other in a weight ratio in a range of 1:0.2 to 1:0.6, thus a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Murata further teaches in [0054] by using a negative electrode material obtained by the method according to the present invention, a lithium-ion battery having a large charge-discharge capacity and excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics can be produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the method of Troegel with the teachings of Murata, whereby the method including the carbon material, silicon-based particles, solvent and further C precursors such as organic polymers, etc., as disclosed by Troegel further includes mixing a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and a compound containing an isocyanate functional group in a solvent to produce a mixture, performing an activation treatment on the wood-based raw-material subjected to the carbonizing heat-treatment, and then washing the wood-based raw-material to obtain the carbon material, and the carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and the isocyanate compound are mixed with each other in a weight ratio as discussed above and taught by Murata so as to provide a lithium-ion battery having a large charge-discharge capacity and excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics can be produced.
However, as discussed above, the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata are silent as to performing a steam activation treatment.
Mason teaches electroactive materials for metal-ion batteries (Title). Mason further teaches in [0056] a variety of plant-based materials may be used to prepare the porous carbon framework, whereby examples include plant sources including tree barks, coconut shells, etc. Mason further teaches the porous carbon framework is obtained from the plant source in a process comprising two steps: firstly, the carbonaceous plant material is pyrolyzed by heating the plant material in an inert atmosphere, etc., and [0059] secondly, the pyrolyzed materials is activated by heating with a flow of steam, etc., which at least provides performing a steam activation treatment (also see [0018], [0039], [0043], [0045]-[0046]).
Mason further teaches in [0002] this invention relates in general to electroactive materials that are suitable for use in electrodes for rechargeable metal-ion batteries, and more specifically to particulate materials having high electrochemical capacities that are suitable for use as anode active materials in rechargeable metal-ion batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata further with the teachings of Mason, whereby the method including the carbon material, silicon-based particles, solvent and further C precursors such as organic polymers, mixing a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and a compound containing an isocyanate functional group in a solvent to produce a mixture, performing an activation treatment on the wood-based raw-material subjected to the carbonizing heat-treatment, and then washing the wood-based raw-material to obtain the carbon material, and the carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and the isocyanate compound are mixed with each other in a weight ratio as discussed above and as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata further include a steam activation treatment so as to provide a electroactive materials that are suitable for use in electrodes for rechargeable metal-ion batteries, and more specifically to particulate materials having high electrochemical capacities that are suitable for use as anode active materials in rechargeable metal-ion batteries.
However, as discussed above, the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason are silent as to an octadecyl isocyanate.
Saito teaches a negative electrode, nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery and method for manufacturing the same (Title). Saito further teaches in [0052] the isocyanate group of the isocyanate compound forms a solid electrolyte interface coating (SEI) derived from the isocyanate compound through the reaction with a hydroxyl group or moisture existing within an electrode mixture such as the negative electrode active material, and it is known that a hydroxyl group is present on the surface of graphite, etc. Saito further teaches in [0059] the isocyanate compound represented by the foregoing formula (1), 1-isocyanatooctadecane can be exemplified as a preferred example, etc., which at least provides octadecyl isocyanate (also see [0017]-[0018], [0049]-[0072], Tables 1-4, such that the foregoing isocyanate compound can be used singly, or two or more kinds thereof can be properly mixed and used as disclosed in [0072]), lacking any further chemical distinction thereof.
Saito further teaches in [0054] in view of the fact that such an isocyanate compound has both a hydrophobic main chain and a hydrophilic isocyanate group, a surfactant effect is expected, and a desired negative electrode is easily obtainable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason with the teachings of Saito, whereby the method including the carbon material, silicon-based particles, solvent, isocyanate compound, etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason further includes octadecyl isocyanate as taught by Saito with the expressed motivation to provide an isocyanate compound that has both a hydrophobic main chain and a hydrophilic isocyanate group, so that a surfactant effect is expected, and thereby a desired negative electrode is easily obtainable.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate substituting one known isocyanate compound of the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason with another known isocyanate compound such as octadecyl isocyanate as taught by Saito with the expressed motivation to provide an isocyanate compound that has both a hydrophobic main chain and a hydrophilic isocyanate group, so that a surfactant effect is expected, and thereby a desired negative electrode is easily obtainable.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito are silent as to crushing the wood-based raw-material into a size of 80 mesh or smaller.
Zhang teaches (Abstract) the effects of mesh size in the treatment of wood-based precursors for composite materials, etc., and further teaches making specific mention of the improved mechanical properties of composites resulting from size 80 mesh pre-treatment (page 5- lines 3-6 reading; “When the mesh number of the wood powder was 80-100 mesh, the mechanical properties were greatly enhanced and the tensile and bending strengths reached maximum values”).
Since the combined prior art concerns overlapping and similar subject matter, namely a method of making wood-based carbon composite materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito with the teachings of Zhang, whereby the method including the wood-based raw-material as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito, further includes the mesh size treatment of Zhang to arrive at the claimed invention, with the expressed motivation of enhancing the mechanical properties (tensile and bending strengths) of the resulting material.
In the alternative, Min teaches a method for preparing carbon electrode by using lignin (Title). Min further teaches in [0035] lignin pretreatment: whereby enzymatically hydrolyzed lignin raw material was dried at 60°C for 24 hours, and 50 g of lignin was weighed for preliminary grinding and then passed through an 80-mesh sieve to refine the particles in the raw material, etc., which at least provides crushing (e.g., grinding) the wood-based raw-material into a size of 80 mesh or smaller so to pass through an 80-mesh sieve, etc. (also see [0042], [0049], [0056]) Min further teaches in [0021]-[0025] Lignin has the characteristics of being widely available, renewable, and harmless to the environment and human health, whereby using lignin as a raw material can achieve efficient utilization of resources, such that the process of preparing carbon electrodes using lignin is simple, technically safe and reliable, economical and environmentally friendly, and easy to industrialize, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito with the teachings of Min, whereby the method including the carbon material, silicon-based particles, solvent, compound containing an isocyanate functional group, etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito further includes crushing the wood-based raw-material into a size of 80 mesh or smaller as taught by Min so as to provide a technically safe and reliable, economical and environmentally friendly, and easy to industrialize, etc.
Regarding claim 3, Troegel discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Troegel further discloses in [0010] the wood based raw material may consist of sawdust, which at least constitutes a form of “waste wood”, and thereby at least provides a wood-based raw-material includes at least waste wood from the group.
Regarding claim 4, Troegel discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Troegel further discloses in [0052] the ideal temperature range for carbonizing heat treatment to be 500-1000 0C, which at least encompasses the claimed range of the carbonizing heat-treating is performed at 600 to 800°C, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Troegel further teaches in [0059] the advantageous hold times are preferably 2-10 hours, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 5 hours, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
It is noted that the temperature and/or time range(s) of Troegel differ in the exact same range(s) as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range the prior art overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the alternative, Murata further teaches in [0088]-[0091] the carbon particle (B) comprises a carbonaceous material with its crystal underdeveloped, etc., whereby as a raw material to prepare the carbonaceous material a substance derived from resin such as phenolic resins, cellulose resins, or a substance derived from plant such as a coconut shell, broad leaf trees, bamboo charcoal, needle leaf trees, etc., such that the method for producing the carbonaceous material comprises subjecting the raw material to carbonization treatment in an inert atmosphere at preferably not lower than 800°C and lower than 2000°C, etc., which at least which at least a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of the carbonizing heat-treating is performed at 600 to 800°C, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Murata further teaches in [0054] by using a negative electrode material obtained by the method according to the present invention, a lithium-ion battery having a large charge-discharge capacity and excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics can be produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) further with the teachings of Murata, whereby the method as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) further includes the carbonizing heat-treatment temperature range as taught by Murata so as to provide a lithium-ion battery having a large charge-discharge capacity and excellent charge-discharge cycle characteristics can be produced.
Regarding claim 7, Troegel discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Troegel further discloses in [0022] each of the silicon-based particles is made of at least one selected from a group consisting of Si, SiO, etc., (i.e., at least silicon particles may be elemental Si and SiO, etc., also see Examples 1-3, [0024]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Troegel discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Troegel further teaches in [0052] the ideal temperature range for carbonizing heat treatment to be 500-1000 0C, which at least overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of the heat-treating is performed at 800 to 1,000°C, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Troegel further teaches in [0059] the advantageous hold times are preferably 2-10 hours, which overlaps the claimed range of 6 to 18 hours, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
It is noted that the 800 to 1,000°C of Troegel differ in the exact same 800 to 1000 0C range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range the prior art overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakshuag et al. (U.S. PGPub US 20170170477 A1 as previously relied upon), hereinafter Sakshuag.
Regarding claim 6, Troegel discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. However, Troegel is silent as to the carbon material has a specific surface area of 500 to 3,000 m2/g.
The combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) teach the method as discussed above in claim 1. Sakshuag further teaches in [0172] the specific surface area of the carbon material can in some embodiments be greater than 500 m2/g, etc., which provides a range of specific surface area(s) that overlap and/or encompass the claimed range of the carbon material has a specific surface area of 500 to 3000 m2/g, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
It is noted that the specific surface area range(s) of Troegel differ in the exact same range(s) as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range the prior art overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the 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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2021/0214234 (A1)), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Troegel discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. However, Troegel is silent as to the mixture includes at least one selected from a group consisting of polyethylene polyphenyl isocyanate, trimethylene diisocyanate, 1,2-propylene diisocyanate, tetramethylene diisocyanate, 2,3-butylene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, octamethylene diisocyanate, 2,4-trimethyl hexamethylene diisocyanate, 2,4,4-trimethyl hexamethylene diisocyanate, and dodecamethylene diisocyanate.
The combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) disclose the method as discussed above in claim 1. Lee teaches a carbonaceous material for negative electrode active material additive for lithium secondary battery (Title). Lee further teaches in [0008] an object of the present invention is to provide a carbonaceous material for a negative electrode active material additive for a lithium secondary battery which has improved input characteristics and may implement excellent life characteristics. Lee further teaches in [0019] the carbonaceous material may include a carbide obtained by heat-treating a polyurethane resin containing 150 parts by weight or more and 240 parts by weight or less of an isocyanate with respect to 100 parts by weight of a polyol, under an inert gas atmosphere to carbonize the polyurethane resin, etc., whereby the isocyanate may be any one or two or more selected from the group consisting of hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI), polyethylene polyphenyl diisocyanate, etc., which at least provides hexamethylene diisocyanate, polyethylene polyphenyl isocyanate, etc., from the group.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) further with the teachings of Lee, whereby the method including the mixture as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min) further includes the hexamethylene diisocyanate, polyethylene polyphenyl isocyanate, etc., from the group as taught by Lee so as to provide a carbonaceous material for a negative electrode active material additive for a lithium secondary battery which has improved input characteristics and may implement excellent life characteristics.
Response to Arguments
The proposed modification based on Saito is improper
Applicant argues Page 8, “Murata describes the use of silane coupling agents. In particular, Murata refers to the use of -(triethoxysilyl)propyl isocyanate (Murata, para. 0152). However, Murata fails to describe the use of octadecyl isocyanate as presently recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not replace Murata's 3-(triethoxysilyl)propyl isocyanate with octadecyl isocyanate because doing so would render Murata's method inoperable. The Office Action admits that the combined teachings of Troegel, Murata, and Mason are silent as to a compound containing an octadecyl isocyanate functional group (Office Action, p. 11). The Office Action thus cites to Saito as teaching an isocyanate compound represented by formula (1): R¹-N=C=0 (Id.). Applicant respectfully submits, however, that the proposed modification based on Saito is improper.” Applicant argues Page 9, “Therefore, it would not be possible to substitute Saito's 1-isocyanatooctadecane in Murata's functionalization of the carbon particle B because the isocyanate moiety of 1-isocyanatooctadecane would react with hydroxyls on the surface of the carbon (e.g., mesocarbon microbeads, MCMB). Thus, no isocyanate moiety would remain in Murata to link with the functionalized silicon particle A-1.”
The examiner respectively disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or alternative Min) disclose the limitations of the product as claimed, and therefore arguments directed to the method are not commensurate in scope with the product. Furthermore, as discussed above in the rejection of record, Murata teaches in [0094] at the linkage point between the particle (A) and the carbon particle (B), a chemical bond is present, whereby the chemical bond is preferably at least one selected from the group consisting of a urethane bond, etc., whereby as taught in [0095] the urethane bond is the bond represented by (-NH-(C=O)-O-), such that the urethane bond is formed, for example, by condensation of an isocyanate group and a hydroxy group, etc., such that as taught in [0109] this reaction can be conducted by stirring the carbon particle (B) containing the functional group and the particle (A) containing the functional group in a solvent, etc. (also see [0096], [0100], [0105]), which at least provides mixing a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment as discussed above) and a compound containing an isocyanate (i.e., at least compound containing isocyanate group so as to form a urethane bond, etc.) in a solvent to produce a mixture.
Therefore, as discussed above, the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason are silent as to an octadecyl isocyanate.
Saito teaches in [0054] Examples of isocyanate compounds include isocyanate compounds represented by any one of the following general formulae (1) to (4), and in view of the fact that such an isocyanate compound has both a hydrophobic main chain and a hydrophilic isocyanate group, a surfactant effect is expected, and a desired negative electrode is easily obtained.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito, whereby the method including the carbon material, silicon-based particles, solvent, isocyanate compound, etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason further includes octadecyl isocyanate as taught by Saito with the expressed motivation to provide an isocyanate compound that has both a hydrophobic main chain and a hydrophilic isocyanate group, so that a surfactant effect is expected, and thereby a desired negative electrode is easily obtainable.
Furthermore, Saito teaches in [0064] isocyanate compound(s) having a chain hydrocarbon group in which at least a part of carbons and hydrogens is substituted with silicon, etc., such as dimethyldiisocyanatosilane, whereby the skilled artisan would appreciate simply substituting one known isocyanate compound such as 1-isocyanatooctadecane (i.e., at least octadecyl isocyanate) for another known isocyanate compound including compounds with isocyanate and silane groups as taught by Saito (i.e., at least commensurate in scope with isocyanate compounds as taught by Murata) so as to expect a surfactant effect, and a desired negative electrode is easily obtained.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Saito teaches away from the carbon material : octadecyl isocyanate weight ratio
Applicant argues Page 9, “In detail, in connection with the experimental result in Saito's Table 2, Saito states, "when the addition amount of the isocyanate compound exceeds 5 parts by weight [of electrolytic solution], the charge and discharge characteristics are greatly impaired" (Saito, para. 0175, emphasis added). Saito thus teaches the use of, at most, a weight ratio of carbon material : 1-isocyanatooctadecane ratio of 1 : 0.06 as shown by the calculations below (See Table as provided by Applicant taken and calculated from Saito’s Table 2)”. Applicant argues Page 10, “Thus, Saito's maximum ratio (1 : 0.06) is below the range recited in claim 1. As such, Saito teaches away from the weight ratio of 1 : 0.2 to 1 : 0.6 that is recited in claim 1. Further, Saito's maximum ratio (1 : 0.06) demonstrates that the Office Action's citation to Murata as teaching 1-20 parts by mass relative to 100 parts carbon would be unworkable.”
The examiner respectively disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, Murata further teaches in [0106] modification with such a silane coupling agent can achieve introduction of a functional group that can serve as a base of a chemical bond onto the surface of the carbon particle (B), whereby the functional group to be introduced is not particularly limited provided that it chemically bonds with a functional group introduced into the particle (A) and is preferably an isocyanate group that is highly reactive, etc., whereby the amount of the functional group to be introduced is not particularly limited and is preferably 1 to 20 parts by mass in terms of the amount of the silane coupling agent to be used, relative to 100 parts by mass of the carbon particle (B), etc., which at least provides a weight ratio range of 5 to 100 (i.e., 100/20 to 100/1), which is a weight ratio range that overlaps the claimed range of a carbon material (i.e., obtained from a wood-based raw-material using a carbonizing heat-treatment) and an isocyanate compound are mixed with each other in a weight ratio in a range of 1:0.2 to 1:0.6, thus a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Therefore, the examiner asserts that combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min), whereby Murata teaches the weight ratio range for a carbon material and an isocyanate compound, and Saito teaches the specific isocyanate compound octadecyl isocyanate.
In other words, Saito is not relied upon to meet the claimed weight ratio and is instead relied upon to meet the octadecyl isocyanate compound, such that as discussed above the skilled artisan would appreciate simply substituting one known isocyanate compound such as 1-isocyanatooctadecane (i.e., at least octadecyl isocyanate) for another known isocyanate compound including compounds with isocyanate and silane groups as taught by Saito (i.e., at least commensurate in scope with isocyanate compounds as taught by Murata) so as to expect a surfactant effect, and a desired negative electrode is easily obtained.
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that although the Examples provided by Saito in Table 2 may or may not be in the range, these are specific ranges, and there is nothing to suggest that other ranges should not be considered. Moreover, the examiner asserts that the carbon material as claimed is broad in scope, such that Saito teaches other carbon materials in [0038]-[0039] and since no further examples and/or ranges are taught by Saito for the broad range of carbon materials one having ordinary skill would appreciate that various weight ranges possible and do not constitute teaching away.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, in light of the amendment(s) to the claim(s), a new grounds of rejection 35 U.S.C. 103 is made for claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 10 in view of combined teachings of Troegel and Murata and Mason and Saito and Zhang (or in the alternative Min). See the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record for the claims that depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dhanabalan et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2022/0059818 A1), hereinafter Dhanabalan discloses Lithium-silicon battery (Title), whereby as taught in [0126] The carbons scaffold sample as described in Table 4 were employed to produce a variety of silicon-carbon composite materials, etc.
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 JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights