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 § 112
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.
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation "the nanorod structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Status
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 2 is acknowledged. Claims 6, 12, and 40 have been withdrawn. Claims 8-9, 13, 15, 17, 29, 34-35, 41 are amended. The amendments are supported by the specification and the previous claims, no new matter has been added. Claims 14, 16, 23-26, 28, and 30-33, and 36-38, and 48-49, and 52-57 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7, 10-11, 18-22, 27, 39, 42-47, and 50-51 stand as originally or as previously presented. Claims 1-5,7-11,13,15,17-22,27,29,34-35,39,41-47 and 50-51 are considered in this office action.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, 17, 34-35, and 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin (US 20140287301 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yushin discloses anodic core elements and a conformal shell coating on an outer surface of the anodic core elements forming core/shell structures ([0110] discloses anode core-shell particles). Yushin does not explicitly disclose information regarding the claimed properties, such as passivation interface size, core material intrinsic dissolution rate, and core and shell hydrogen evolution reaction rate. However, Yushin does disclose an Li2S core material [0096], which is the same core material used in the instant application (see claim 5 and [0062] of the instant application), and a protective shell 1204 that is permeable to Li ions. [0062] of the instant specification discloses Li2S as a valid core material, which [0058] discloses has a passivation interface size, an intrinsic dissolution rate, and a hydrogen evolution reaction rate. Because Yushin uses the same core material as the instant application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the core of Yushin to also have a passivation interface size, an intrinsic dissolution rate, and a hydrogen evolution reaction rate. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Further, Yushin does not explicitly use the term “core material dissolution rate”, however [0100] discloses that that it is important to ensure that the shell does not dissolve in the electrolyte, thus reasonably reading on the limitation that the dissolution rate of the core material from the core/shell structures is less than the core material intrinsic dissolution rate, see also [0011], which discloses that the active material particles may comprise a coating which impedes water decomposition.
Yushin does not explicitly discuss a hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) rate of the shell is less than the core, however [0066] discloses that a protective coating, when applied to the anode, may prevent hydrogen evolution, which can reasonably be interpreted as having a lower HER rate than the core. [0100] and [0071] discloses that the same materials that are used in the protective layer, such as aluminum and zirconium oxides, are materials that may be used in the shell, and as a result it can be reasonably interpreted that the claimed limitation is met.
Yushin does not explicitly disclose that the anodic core elements comprise a feature size smaller than the core material passivation interface size. However, [0044] of the instant specification discloses that when the anodic core elements are nanoscale, feature size is expected to be smaller than passivation interface size. [0096] of Yushin disclose that the core is made up of nanoparticles, and as a result it would reasonably be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the anodic core elements of Yushin would comprise a feature size smaller than the core material passivation interface size, thus meeting the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the electrode is rechargable ([0135] discloses that the electrode is chargeable. [0036] of the instant application discloses that applicant considers a deeply rechargable battery to be one with a depth of discharge greater than 50%. However, examiner notes that depth of discharge refers merely to how much of a battery’s total energy capacity has been used in a cycle, for example a battery that has fully discharged having a depth of discharge of 100%, and a battery that is fully charged having a depth of discharge of 0%. As a result, this limitation refers to intended use and/or operating conditions/methods of the electrode, rather than an inherent quality or property of the electrode, and therefore is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2103 C). Further, even if it was, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on common practice in the art that an operator of the battery could choose to discharge it for longer periods of time before charging, reaching a depth of discharge greater than 50%, and that this would be obvious due to inherent advantages such as less frequent charging requirements and increasing the amount of time the battery can be used for).
Regarding claim 3, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1. Examiner notes that depth of discharge refers merely to how much of a battery’s total energy capacity has been used in a cycle, for example a battery that has fully discharged having a depth of discharge of 100%, and a battery that is fully charged having a depth of discharge of 0%. As a result, this limitation refers to intended use and/or operating conditions/methods of the electrode, rather than an inherent quality or property of the electrode, and therefore is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2103 C). Further, even if it was, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on common practice in the art that an operator of the battery could choose to discharge it for longer periods of time before charging, reaching a depth of discharge greater than 50%, and that this would be obvious due to inherent advantages such as less frequent charging requirements and increasing the amount of time the battery can be used for.
Regarding claim 4, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the core material is selected from the group comprising a metal sulfide (Yushin discloses a Li2S core material [0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the core material is selected from the group comprising Li2S (Yushin discloses a Li2S core material [0096]).
Regarding claim 7, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the conformal shell coating comprises carbon ([0099] discloses that the shell may be, for example, various types of carbon).
Regarding claim 8, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the core/shell structures have a specific discharge capacity of at least 70% of the theoretical limit of the specific discharge capacity of the core material. However, Yushin does disclose that it is conservatively estimated that at least 52% if the capacity of the Li2S material will remain, based on how much of the volume is occupied by the non-active components and pores. However, Yushin teaches that pore size can vary significantly [0016], as well as the amount of non-active component (claim 2 of Yushin for example discloses for example that the shell can have a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 500 nm, meaning that significantly less shell will be used when the thickness is only 10 nm. Examiner will note that the lower end of this range “about 10 nm”, overlaps with the shell thickness ranged disclosed by the instant application (see e.g. claim 15).
Since Yushin also discloses the same electrode as claim 1, and the same core material as used in the instant application (claim 5 and [0137] of Yushin both disclose Li2S), as well as the same carbon shell material ([0099] of Yushin and [0072] of the instant application), plus conditions for amount of non-active material such as the carbon coating, it would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the specific discharge capacity of the core/shell structures would be expected to fall within or overlap with the claimed range of at least 70% of the theoretical limit of the specific discharge capacity of the core material when conditions overlapping the conditions disclosed by the instant application are chosen as the conditions for the electrode of Yushin. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 9, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a coulombic efficiency greater than about 93.5%. However, Yushin discloses many of the same or overlapping features as the instant claim, including the same electrode as claim 1, and the same core material as used in the instant application (claim 5 and [0137] of Yushin both disclose Li2S), as well as the same carbon shell material ([0099] of Yushin and [0072] of the instant application), plus for example that the shell can have a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 500 nm, which examiner notes overlaps with the shell thickness ranged disclosed by the instant application (see e.g. claim 15).
Since Yushin also discloses the same electrode as claim 1, and the same core material as used in the instant application (claim 5 and [0137] of Yushin both disclose Li2S), as well as the same carbon shell material ([0099] of Yushin and [0072] of the instant application), plus conditions for amount shell material such as the carbon coating, it would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the electrode would have a coulombic efficiency greater than 93.5%. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 10, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1. Examiner notes that the limitation that the anodic core/shell structure are formed by a deposition technique of layers of the conformal shell coating over a deposition cycling series, wherein a morphology the anodic core elements prior to the deposition cycling series is substantially the same as a morphology of the core/shell structures after the deposition cycling series is a product by process limitation and as such as not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product by process limitation is held obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). As a result the limitation of claim 12 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
However, examiner does note that [0108] of Yushin discloses that various deposition techniques may be used for the formation of shells, such as vapor deposition techniques, such as chemical or atomic layer deposition, various wet techniques such as layer-by-layer deposition, dip coating, electro-deposition, and other known deposition techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1. Examiner notes that the limitation that the anodic core/shell structure are formed by an atomic deposition technique of layers of the conformal shell coating over an ALD cycling series, wherein a morphology the anodic core elements prior to the deposition cycling series is substantially the same as a morphology of the core/shell structures after the deposition cycling series is a product by process limitation and as such as not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product by process limitation is held obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). As a result the limitation of claim 12 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
However, examiner does note that [0108] of Yushin discloses that various deposition techniques may be used for the formation of shells, including atomic layer deposition and other known deposition techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Yushin disclose the electrode of claim 1, wherein the conformal shell coating has a thickness of less than 10 nm ([01114]-[0116] discloses a protective shell 1404 for the core-shell nanoparticles. Yushin discloses that the coating which encases the active material particles may have a thickness which is “about” 10 nm to about 500 nm. The word “about” is understood in the art to provide some tolerance, for example values close to but under 10 or close to but over 10 are interpreted as being “about 10”. As a result, the range disclosed by Yushin of about 10 nm to about 500 overlaps the claimed range of less than 10 nm. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a thickness for the shell from amongst the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Regarding claim 17, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a specific discharge capacity of the core/shell structures. However, [0110] and [0112] discloses that the core-shell anode particles have a high capacity, and [0137] discloses that it is estimated that the anode material will retain around 52% of the specific capacity of Li2S. Li2S is also known in the art to have a theoretical specific capacity of 1166 mAh/g, which would put the estimation of specific discharge capacity at around 606 mAh/g, meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 34, Yushin discloses a rechargable battery system comprising:
the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),
an aqueous electrolyte (abstract); and
a cathode (abstract).
Regarding claim 35, Yushin discloses the rechargable battery system of claim 34, wherein one or more of:
the rechargeable battery system has a depth of discharge (DOD) of greater than 50% (Examiner notes that depth of discharge refers merely to how much of a battery’s total energy capacity has been used in a cycle, for example a battery that has fully discharged having a depth of discharge of 100%, and a battery that is fully charged having a depth of discharge of 0%. As a result, this limitation refers to intended use and/or operating conditions/methods of the electrode, rather than an inherent quality or property of the electrode, and therefore is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2103 C). Further, even if it was, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on common practice in the art that an operator of the battery could choose to discharge it for longer periods of time before charging, reaching a depth of discharge greater than 50%, and that this would be obvious due to inherent advantages such as less frequent charging requirements and increasing the amount of time the battery can be used for).
Regarding claim 41, Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 35. Examiner notes that the limitation that the anodic core/shell structure are formed by an atomic layer deposition technique of the conformal shell coating on the core over an ALD cycling series, wherein a morphology the core/shell structure prior to the deposition cycling series is substantially the same as a morphology of the core/shell structures after the deposition cycling series, the ALD cycling series comprising at least 100 cycles, is a product by process limitation and as such as not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product by process limitation is held obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). As a result the limitation of claim 12 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
However, examiner does note that [0108] of Yushin discloses that various deposition techniques may be used for the formation of shells, including atomic layer deposition and other known deposition techniques in the art.
Regarding claim 42, Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 35, wherein over an electrochemical cycling series of the battery, the morphology of the core/shell structures after the electrochemical cycling series is substantially the same as the morphology of the core/shell structure prior to the electrochemical cycling series ([0098]-[0099] discloses that the shell materials are water impermeable but Li-ion permeable. Li-permeability enables normal electrochemical cycling to occur, but prevents degradation of the material via water/electrolyte and protects against corrosion, see also [0095]-[0097], which discloses that the shells are compatible with the electrolyte, solvent impermeable, and lack water permeable defects or weak points, and [0101] discloses that the shells prevent the electrolyte and active material from experiencing unwanted decomposition or reactions. [0112] disclose that the battery is optimized so that charge/discharge cycles do not cause failure in the active material particles, and [0089] discloses that the invention of Yushin achieves long-term cycle stability.
As a result, it can reasonably be interpreted that over an electrochemical cycling series of the battery, morphology of the core/shell structures remain substantially intact, as it is these protective structures which enable the degradation or denegation of the active material and other battery elements to be prevented. This is clearly effective over multiple cycles, as evidenced by the long-term cycling stability which is disclosed, and as a result it can be reasonably interpreted that the morphology of the core/shell structures remains substantially the same after electrochemical cycling.
Regarding claim 43, Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 42, wherein the mass loading of the anodic core/shell structures is greater than approximately 1.7 mg/cm2 (Yushin does not explicitly disclose a mass loading range. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the mass loading of a material depends on the thickness of the layer that material appears in. [0129] discloses that the anode material thickness may be in the range of, for example, 0.5 mm to 8 mm thick. Li2S has a density of, 1.66 g/cm3, while forms of carbon used as the shell typically have a density even higher than this. Taking average density to be 1.66 g/cm3, and the anode material thickness to be the maximum of 8 mm, along with the conservative estimate of [0137] that 48 of the volume will be occupied by non-active components and pores, the mass loading can be found. First, it can be calculated that the volume of active material layer for every mg/cm2 of active material will be 0.8 cm3. Only 52% of that volume, or about 0.4 cm3. Is active material taking a density of 1.66 c/cm3, it is found that a mass loading of the core/shell structures at the high end of electrode thickness is 0.664 g/cm2, falling in the claimed range of higher than 1.7 mg/cm2, and as a result at the very least overlapping the claimed range. As a result, it would have been obvious to select a mass loading amount within the claimed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Regarding claim 44, Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 35, but does not explicitly disclose a core specific discharge capacity, a core/shell specific discharge capacity, and that the number of cycling series until the core/shell specific discharge capacity decays to 50% is at least 150% longer than the number of cycling series until the specific discharge capacity of the core material decays to 50%.
However, ([0098]-[0099] discloses that the shell materials are water impermeable but Li-ion permeable. Li-permeability enables normal electrochemical cycling to occur, but prevents degradation of the material via water/electrolyte and protects against corrosion, see also [0095]-[0097], which discloses that the shells are compatible with the electrolyte, solvent impermeable, and lack water permeable defects or weak points, and [0101] discloses that the shells prevent the electrolyte and active material from experiencing unwanted decomposition or reactions. [0112] disclose that the battery is optimized so that charge/discharge cycles do not cause failure in the active material particles, and [0089] discloses that the invention of Yushin achieves long-term cycle stability.
Given the fact that Yushin discloses the shell’s positive effect in preventing degradation of the core material and ensuring cycle stability, as well as the fact that Yushin discloses the same rechargeable battery system as claim 35, also disclosing the same core and shell materials as are used by the instant application, (Li2S and carbon, see [0099] and [0096]), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect that the number of cycling series until the core/shell specific discharge capacity decays to 50% is at least 150% longer than the number of cycling series until the specific discharge capacity of the core material decays to 50%. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin (US 20140287301 A1), and further in view of Nocera (US 20100133110 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, but does not disclose that the feature size is diameter of nanorod structure, and the diameter is less than approximately 2 µm. However, these features are known in the art. For example, Nocera discloses a similar electrode to Yushin, the electrode comprising core-shell structures [0063], and the anodic core elements comprise nanorods [0072]. Nocera further discloses that the core material may comprise, for example, metal oxides and other material ([0063] discloses that the electrode is a photoactive electrode, and that the photoactive electrode may comprise a photoactive composition and a second material. The second material may form a core and the photoactive composition may cover the core (reading as a core-shell structure), the second material being for example, metals or metal oxides. [0088] discloses that the anodes of Nocera exhibit strong and surprising performance, including surprisingly good stability and good long term robustness. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the anode material of Nocera in the anode of Yushin, and would have been nothing more than the simple substitution of one core/shell material known to function in an anode with good stability and long term robustness as the core/shell active material of another anode.
Nocera does not disclose the diameter, or feature size, of the nanorod structures, but does disclose that the particles are “nanorods”, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand are sized to be nano scale rods. A rod that exists on the nano scale and not the micron scale is commonly understood to have dimensions smaller than one micron, and as a result it can be reasonably interpreted that the nanorods would have a diameter of less than 2 µm, meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 18-19, 29, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin (US 20140287301 A1), and further in view of Li (US 20150303461 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein;
The anodic core elements are nanoparticles ([0096] of Yushin disclose that the core is made up of nanoparticles, and the conformal shell coating comprises carbon ([0099] discloses that the shell may be, for example, various types of carbon).
Yushin does not disclose that the core particles are ZnO, however use of ZnO for core materials in core/shell active particles was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include.
For example, Li discloses a similar active material, including a core/shell nanoparticle ([0048] disclose that the particles may range from about 1 nm to about 100 µm, reading on nanoparticle size, and that the nanoparticles are further coated with carbon, reading on a core/shell structure, see also [0102], which describes a carbon coated core), wherein the core material used comprises ZnO [0042]. [0005] discloses that zinc is ideal electrode material because of its high specific capacity, low electrochemical potential, high coulombic efficiency, high abundance, and environmental friendliness, and [0035]-[0037] discloses that using a coated (core/shell) zinc oxide can solve some of the issues with zinc electrodes, resulting in a material with excellent cell characteristics and cycle life.
As a result, it would have been obvious to use ZnO as the core material for the core/shell nanoparticles of Yushin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Yushin, including use of a material having ideal properties like high specific capacity, abundance, and environmental friendliness, as well as enabling the creation of a cell with excellent cell characteristics and cycle life. Doing so would result in an electrode meeting the limitations of the instant claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Yushin in view of Li discloses the electrode of claim 18, wherein the conformal shell comprises an amorphous, microporous, and conductive carbon ([0099] of Yushin discloses that the shell material is, for example, disordered or amorphous carbon, which are known to be amorphous and conductive, and [0121] discloses a porous shell.
Regarding claim 29, Yushin in view of Li discloses the electrode of claim 18, wherein the conformal shell coating comprises an ion-sieving carbon shell ([0099] of Yushin discloses a conformal shell that is Li-ion permeable and water impermeable, reasonably reading on “ion sieving”).
Regarding claim 50, Yushin discloses a rechargeable battery system comprising:
the electrode of claim 1, comprising an aqueous electrolyte and a cathode (abstract). Yushin does not disclose that the core particles are ZnO, however use of ZnO for core materials in core/shell active particles was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include.
For example, Li discloses a similar active material, including a core/shell nanoparticle ([0048] disclose that the particles may range from about 1 nm to about 100 µm, reading on nanoparticle size, and that the nanoparticles are further coated with carbon, reading on a core/shell structure, see also [0102], which describes a carbon coated core), wherein the core material used comprises ZnO [0042]. [0005] discloses that zinc is ideal electrode material because of its high specific capacity, low electrochemical potential, high coulombic efficiency, high abundance, and environmental friendliness, and [0035]-[0037] discloses that using a coated (core/shell) zinc oxide can solve some of the issues with zinc electrodes, resulting in a material with excellent cell characteristics and cycle life.
As a result, it would have been obvious to use ZnO as the core material for the core/shell nanoparticles of Yushin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Yushin, including use of a material having ideal properties like high specific capacity, abundance, and environmental friendliness, as well as enabling the creation of a cell with excellent cell characteristics and cycle life. Doing so would result in an electrode meeting the limitations of the instant claim 50.
Claim(s) 20, 27, and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin (US 20140287301 A1) in view of Li (US 20150303461 A1), and further in view of Goan (US 20170210981 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 19, but fails to disclose that an assembly of core/shell structures form Zn-pome microspheres (pomegranate-like nanoporous carbon-coated ZnO clusters). [0330] of the instant specification describes the Zn-pome microspheres as zinc oxide nanoparticles that are analogous to seeds that are individually encapsulated and held in clusters by a carbon shell diaphragm. Even though Yushin and Li do not disclose this configuration, such an Zn-pome microsphere material was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Goan discloses a semiconductor nanoparticle assembly which comprises an aggregate having a plurality of coated semiconductor nanoparticles aggregated, said coated semiconductor nanoparticles each containing a semiconductor nanoparticle having a core/shell structure [0011]. Further, Goan discloses a semiconductor nanoparticle, ZnO as a preferred material [0029]. Additionally, as can be seen in fig. 1 of Goan, a plurality of ZnO core/shell particles are formed into Zn-pome microspheres that possess the encapsulated seed configuration disclosed by applicant. Fig. 1 has been provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goan discloses that a configuration according to claim 1 has the effect of strengthening aggregation between the coated particles ([0020], [0075]) as well as other benefits such as heat resistance [0008]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the aggregated pome-structured Core/shell seed structural configuration disclosed by Goan in the invention of modified Yushin, resulting in an electrode meeting the limitations of claim 20. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this to obtain benefits such as heat resistance and strengthened aggregation, as disclosed by Goan. Goan is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both Goan and the instant application reasonably pertain to the problem of ZnO core/shell particle aggregation and structuring.
Regarding claim 27, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 20, and [0005] of Li discloses that the zinc material has a high capacity, but modified Yushin does not explicitly disclose the specific capacity of the Zn-Pome microspheres. However, since modified Yushin discloses the same electrode as claimed, including the same Zn-Pome microsphere arrangement, comprised of the same ZnO/carbon core/shell nanostructures, and because the zinc material is a material known to have a high specific capacity, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious that the specific discharge capacity of the Zn-Pome microspheres would be expected to exceed or overlap with the claimed range of greater than 400 mAh/g. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 45, Yushin discloses a rechargeable battery system comprising the electrode of claim 1, an aqueous electrolyte, and a cathode (abstract of Yushin). Yushin does not disclose that the core particles are ZnO, however use of ZnO for core materials in core/shell active particles was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include.
For example, Li discloses a similar active material, including a core/shell nanoparticle ([0048] disclose that the particles may range from about 1 nm to about 100 µm, reading on nanoparticle size, and that the nanoparticles are further coated with carbon, reading on a core/shell structure, see also [0102], which describes a carbon coated core), wherein the core material used comprises ZnO [0042]. [0005] discloses that zinc is ideal electrode material because of its high specific capacity, low electrochemical potential, high coulombic efficiency, high abundance, and environmental friendliness, and [0035]-[0037] discloses that using a coated (core/shell) zinc oxide can solve some of the issues with zinc electrodes, resulting in a material with excellent cell characteristics and cycle life.
As a result, it would have been obvious to use ZnO as the core material for the core/shell nanoparticles of Yushin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Yushin, including use of a material having ideal properties like high specific capacity, abundance, and environmental friendliness, as well as enabling the creation of a cell with excellent cell characteristics and cycle life.
Yushin fails to disclose that an assembly of core/shell structures form Zn-pome microspheres (pomegranate-like nanoporous carbon-coated ZnO clusters). [0330] of the instant specification describes the Zn-pome microspheres as zinc oxide nanoparticles that are analogous to seeds that are individually encapsulated and held in clusters by a carbon shell diaphragm. Even though Yushin and Li do not disclose this configuration, such an Zn-pome microsphere material was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Goan discloses a semiconductor nanoparticle assembly which comprises an aggregate having a plurality of coated semiconductor nanoparticles aggregated, said coated semiconductor nanoparticles each containing a semiconductor nanoparticle having a core/shell structure [0011]. Further, Goan discloses a semiconductor nanoparticle, ZnO as a preferred material [0029]. Additionally, as can be seen in fig. 1 of Goan, a plurality of ZnO core/shell particles are formed into Zn-pome microspheres that possess the encapsulated seed configuration disclosed by applicant. Fig. 1 has been provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Goan discloses that a configuration according to claim 1 has the effect of strengthening aggregation between the coated particles ([0020], [0075]) as well as other benefits such as heat resistance [0008]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the aggregated pome-structured Core/shell seed structural configuration disclosed by Goan in the invention of modified Yushin, resulting in an electrode meeting the limitations of claim 20. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this to obtain benefits such as heat resistance and strengthened aggregation, as disclosed by Goan. Goan is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both Goan and the instant application reasonably pertain to the problem of ZnO core/shell particle aggregation and structuring.
Regarding claim 46, modified Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 45, wherein the rechargeable battery system is deeply rechargeable ([0135] discloses that the electrode is chargeable. [0036] of the instant application discloses that applicant considers a deeply rechargable battery to be one with a depth of discharge greater than 50%. However, examiner notes that depth of discharge refers merely to how much of a battery’s total energy capacity has been used in a cycle, for example a battery that has fully discharged having a depth of discharge of 100%, and a battery that is fully charged having a depth of discharge of 0%. As a result, this limitation refers to intended use and/or operating conditions/methods of the electrode, rather than an inherent quality or property of the electrode, and therefore is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2103 C). Further, even if it was, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on common practice in the art that an operator of the battery could choose to discharge it for longer periods of time before charging, reaching a depth of discharge greater than 50%, and that this would be obvious due to inherent advantages such as less frequent charging requirements and increasing the amount of time the battery can be used for).
Regarding claim 47, Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 45, wherein the Zn-Pome microspheres are configured with ion-sieving ability due to both the shell layer of carbon and the micro-structure of the Zn-Pome microsphere ([0099] of Yushin discloses a conformal shell that is Li-ion permeable and water impermeable, reasonably reading on “ion sieving”), and wherein the dissolution rate of Zn from the Zn-Pome microspheres is less than the intrinsic dissolution rate of ZnO ([0100] of Yushin discloses that that it is important to ensure that the shell does not dissolve in the electrolyte, thus reasonably reading on the limitation that the dissolution rate of the core material from the core/shell structures is less than the core material intrinsic dissolution rate, see also [0011], which discloses that the active material particles may comprise a coating which impedes water decomposition).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin (US 20140287301 A1) in view of Li (US 20150303461 A1), and Goan (US 20170210981 A1), and further in view of Chen (A deeply rechargeable zinc anode with pomegranate-inspired nanostructure for high-energy aqueous batteries).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 21, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 20, but does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the Zn-pom microsphere. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Zn-pom microspheres must necessarily have some diameter, and that that diameter is greater than that of the plurality of Zn core shell structures included in the microsphere. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn toward similar structures that were known in the art to determine an appropriate an appropriate size for the Zn-pom microspheres.
Chen, for example, discloses a similar zinc anode with pomegranate-inspired nanostructure (title) in which primary ZnO nanoparticles assemble into secondary clusters and are individually encapsulated by a conductive, microporous carbon framework (paragraph 1), the ZnO nanoparticles having a core-shell structure the same as modified Yushin (results and discussion, paragraph 1). Further, Chen discloses that the diameter of the typical Zn-Pome microsphere is 6 µm (pg. 3, column 2). Chen further teaches that the Zn-Pome microparticles overcome typical problems with ZnO electrodes (paragraph 1). As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a diameter of 6 µm for the Zn-Pome microspheres of modified Yoshida. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a diameter for the microspheres tested in the art by a Zn-Pome microsphere shown to overcome typical problems with ZnO electrodes.
Regarding claim 22, modified Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 20, but does not disclose the number of core/shell structures contained in each Zn-Pome microsphere. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Zn-pom microspheres must necessarily contain some amount of the plurality of core/shell particles. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn toward similar structures that were known in the art to determine an appropriate number of core/shell structures for the Zn-Pome microsphere to comprise.
Chen, for example, discloses a similar zinc anode with pomegranate-inspired nanostructure (title) in which primary ZnO nanoparticles assemble into secondary clusters and are individually encapsulated by a conductive, microporous carbon framework (paragraph 1), the ZnO nanoparticles having a core-shell structure the same as modified Yushin (results and discussion, paragraph 1). Further, Chen discloses that each Zn-pome microsphere contains around 10-5 ZnO core/shell structures. Chen further teaches that the Zn-Pome microparticles overcome typical problems with ZnO electrodes (paragraph 1). As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include around 105 ZnO core/shell structures. for the Zn-Pome microspheres of modified Yoshida. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a diameter for the microspheres tested in the art by a Zn-Pome microsphere shown to overcome typical problems with ZnO electrodes.
Claim(s) 39 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin, and further in view of Van (US 20160020493 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 35, but does not disclose that the cathode material comprises Ni(OH)2. However, Ni(OH)2 cathode materials were known in the art and would have been obvious to include.
For example, Van discloses an aqueous electrolyte cell with a nickel hydroxide (Ni(OH)2) cathode, [0014], and teaches that while other suitable cathodes can be used, nickel hydroxide is preferred because of its improvements over decades into a robust electrode with long cycle life [0034]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nickel hydroxide in the invention of Yushin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to obtain a robust electrode with long cycle life, and doing so would result in a battery system meeting the limitations of claim 39.
Claim(s) 51 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin in view of Li (US 20150303461 A1), and further in view of Van (US 20160020493 A1).
Regarding claim 51, modified Yushin discloses the rechargeable battery system of claim 50, wherein the rechargeable battery system is deeply rechargeable ([0135] of Yushin discloses that the electrode is chargeable. [0036] of the instant application discloses that applicant considers a deeply rechargable battery to be one with a depth of discharge greater than 50%. However, examiner notes that depth of discharge refers merely to how much of a battery’s total energy capacity has been used in a cycle, for example a battery that has fully discharged having a depth of discharge of 100%, and a battery that is fully charged having a depth of discharge of 0%. As a result, this limitation refers to intended use and/or operating conditions/methods of the electrode, rather than an inherent quality or property of the electrode, and therefore is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2103 C). Further, even if it was, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on common practice in the art that an operator of the battery could choose to discharge it for longer periods of time before charging, reaching a depth of discharge greater than 50%, and that this would be obvious due to inherent advantages such as less frequent charging requ