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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN108123111A) in view of Gulas et al. (US 2017/0200950). The English machine translation of Li et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 46, Li et al. teaches a silicon-based composite material for use as a negative electrode material (Para. [0020]) wherein ultrafine silicon particles (i.e. a plurality of silicon nanoparticles, see Para. [0016]) are coated with a layer of a carbon-containing conductor on the surface (Para. [0027]) wherein the carbon-containing conductor is graphene (Para. [0018]) (i.e. silicon nanoparticles coated with graphene particles), oriented on a graphite surface and tightly combined by amorphous carbon with a high filling rate, and in addition, an amorphous carbon coating layer is coated on the outermost surface of the graphite/amorphous carbon/carbon-containing conductor/silicon to form the material (Para. [0027]) (i.e. a silicon and graphite containing composite material comprising composite particles, wherein each composite particle comprises a composite core and an amorphous carbon external shell, wherein the composite core comprises a plurality of nanoparticles coated with graphene particles, a plurality of graphite particles and an amorphous carbon matrix wherein the plurality of silicon particles coated with graphene particles, and the plurality of graphite particles are separate components that are dispersed through and held within the amorphous carbon matrix in the form of separate particles and the amorphous carbon external shell surrounds the amorphous carbon matrix).
Li et al. does not teach the plurality of graphite particles are nanoparticles or a plurality of few-layer graphene particles.
However, Gulas et al. teaches a carbonaceous particulate material for use as active material in negative electrodes in lithium ion batteries (Para. [0001]) wherein the active material may comprise a mixture of few-layer graphene (i.e. few-layer graphene particles), nanographite (i.e. graphite nanoparticles) and silicon (Para. [0048]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite material as taught by Li et al. to incorporate the teaching of a mixture of (i.e. separate components) of few-layer graphene and nanographite as such a mixture with silicon particles allows for a further increase of energy capacity in the anode of lithium ion batteries (Para. [0048]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the carbonaceous materials of few-layer graphite and nanographite for their use as an anode active material in a lithium secondary battery, as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I). Thus, the result of the combination of Li et al. as modified by Gulas et al. would comprise a plurality of silicon nanoparticles coated with graphene particles, a plurality of few-layer graphene particles and a plurality of graphite nanoparticles which are three separate components dispersed through and held within the amorphous carbon matrix in the form of separate particles.
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN108123111A) in view of Gulas et al. (US 2017/0200950) as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view Chang et al. (US 2013/0288131).
Regarding Claim 49, Li et al. as modified by Gulas et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 46 as explained above.
Li et al. does not teach an amorphous carbon external shell surrounding the carbon matrix which may further comprise one or more oxides.
However, Chang et al. teaches an anode active material comprising a core comprising a crystalline carbon-based material such as graphite and low crystalline carbon (Para. [0020]) and a composite coating layer comprising amorphous carbon (Para. [0015]) formed on the outer surface of a core (Para. [0088]) (i.e. an amorphous carbon external shell that surrounds a carbon matrix) and the composite coating layer also includes a hydrophilic material (Para. [0038]) which is preferably an oxide (Para. [0025]) (i.e. an external shell of amorphous carbon may further comprise one or more oxides).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. to incorporate the teaching of a composite coating layer comprising amorphous carbon on the outer surface (i.e. an amorphous carbon external shell that surrounds the carbon matrix) and comprising a hydrophilic material which is an oxide as it would inhibit lithium dendrite growth (Para. [0042]) and imparts hydrophilicity which greatly reduces impregnation time of electrolyte improving battery productivity (Para. [0040]) as well as uniformity improvement which improves bonding strength between the active material and a current collector in a lithium ion battery (Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 50, Li et al. as modified by Gulas et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 49 as explained above.
Li et al. does not teach an amorphous carbon external shell surrounding the carbon matrix which may further comprise one or more oxides wherein the one or more oxides is/are present in the form of Al2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, BaTiO3, MgO, CuO, ZnO, Fe-2O-3, GeO2, Li2O, MnO, NiO or zeolite or any combination thereof.
However, Chang et al. teaches an anode active material comprising a core comprising a crystalline carbon-based material such as graphite and low crystalline carbon (Para. [0020]) and a composite coating layer comprising amorphous carbon (Para. [0015]) formed on the outer surface of a core (Para. [0088]) (i.e. an amorphous carbon external shell that surrounds a carbon matrix) and the composite coating layer also includes a hydrophilic material (Para. [0038]) which is preferably an oxide (Para. [0025]) (i.e. an external shell of amorphous carbon may further comprise one or more oxides) wherein the oxide is preferably aluminum oxide (i.e. Al2--O3), magnesium oxide (i.e. MgO) , zirconium oxide (i.e. ZrO-2) or a mixture thereof (Para. [0026]) (i.e. wherein the one or more oxides is/are present in the form of Al2O3, ZrO2, MgO or a combination thereof) .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. to incorporate the teaching of a composite coating layer comprising amorphous carbon on the outer surface (i.e. an amorphous carbon external shell that surrounds the carbon matrix) and the hydrophilic material of aluminum oxide (i.e. Al2--O3), magnesium oxide (i.e. MgO), zirconium oxide (i.e. ZrO-2) or a mixture thereof as it would inhibit lithium dendrite growth (Para. [0042]) and imparts hydrophilicity which greatly reduces impregnation time of electrolyte improving battery productivity (Para. [0040]) as well as uniformity improvement which improves bonding strength between the active material and a current collector in a lithium ion battery (Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 51, Li et al. as modified by Gulas et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 49 as explained above.
Li et al. does not teach an amorphous carbon external shell surrounding the carbon matrix which may further comprise one or more oxides wherein the one or more oxides has a particle size in the range of 20 nm to 1 micron.
However, Chang et al. teaches an anode active material comprising a core comprising a crystalline carbon-based material such as graphite and low crystalline carbon (Para. [0020]) and a composite coating layer comprising amorphous carbon (Para. [0015]) formed on the outer surface of a core (Para. [0088]) (i.e. an amorphous carbon external shell that surrounds a carbon matrix) and the composite coating layer also includes a hydrophilic material (Para. [0038]) which is preferably an oxide (Para. [0025]) (i.e. an external shell of amorphous carbon may further comprise one or more oxides) wherein the oxide is preferably aluminum oxide (i.e. Al2--O3) (Para. [0026]) (i.e. wherein the one or more oxides is/are present in the form of Al2O3) wherein an aluminum oxide having a mean particle diameter of about 100 nm is used (i.e. the one or more oxides has a particle size in the range of 20 nm to 1 micron) (Para. [0074]) .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. to incorporate the teaching of a composite coating layer comprising amorphous carbon on the outer surface (i.e. an amorphous carbon external shell that surrounds the carbon matrix) and the hydrophilic material of aluminum oxide (i.e. Al2--O3) having a particle size of about 100 nm as it would inhibit lithium dendrite growth (Para. [0042]) and imparts hydrophilicity which greatly reduces impregnation time of electrolyte improving battery productivity (Para. [0040]) as well as uniformity improvement which improves bonding strength between the active material and a current collector in a lithium ion battery (Para. [0039]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Li is prepared by a method such that the composite material of the present invention is structurally different from that of Li, as the claimed active material comprises a carbon core, provided as a true matrix phase, wherein discrete graphene-coated silicon nanoparticles, graphite nanoparticles, and few-layer graphene particles are embedded and dispersed, and further encapsulated by a distinct external shell and because of the method in Li, it is impossible for the particles of Li to contain graphene-coated silicon nanoparticles and graphite particles as discrete particles dispersed in a carbon matrix, since Li requires aligned graphite flakes and the claimed invention employs non-oriented graphite nanoparticles and thus, Li’s orientation teaches away from the use of dispersed graphite particles.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., active material, discrete particles, a true matrix phase, encapsulated by a distinct carbon shell, non-oriented graphite nanoparticles, different mechanical and electrochemical properties) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the teaching of oriented graphite flakes is not a teaching away from dispersed graphite nanoparticles. In order to teach away, the reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2145. A teaching of oriented graphite does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage dispersed graphite nanoparticles. Li et al. explicitly teaches graphite added to ultrafine silicon particles being dispersed (Para. [0088]) and further Li explicitly teaches coated silicon particles (i.e. graphene coated silicon) distributed between graphite sheets (Para. [0014]). Thus, Li teaches the particles are separate components, reading on the claims. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues modifying Li based on Guls would require substantial reconfiguration as there is no reasonable expectation of success in extracting the few-graphene component from the mixture of Gulas and selectively incorporating it into Li’s process, graphite nanoparticles (GNP) and few layer graphene (FLG) particles are considered equivalent of the graphite particles and a skilled person would not expect the large graphite particles of Li being replaced with significantly smaller graphite nanoparticles and few layer graphite particles would achieve the same structure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gulas teaches using CVD to form the few-layer graphene mixture comprising nanographite and silicon (Para. [0048]). Thus, Gulas teaches how to produce the mixture. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation of success. It is unclear why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to incorporate this method as taught by Gulas to produce nanographite and few-layer graphene with the method of Li which then coats with an amorphous carbon layer forming a matrix. Regarding the GNP and FLG being considered equivalent, the carbonaceous materials of few-layer graphite and nanographite as taught by Gulas serve the purpose/function of negative active material in a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0048]) and a silicon-based composite material as taught by Li serves the purpose/function of as a negative active material (Para. [0020]). Combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I). Furthermore, no substitution or replacing of particles was proposed in the rejection of record. The rejection of record explicitly states combining -the teachings of Gulas with Li. Thus, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729