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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 14; and canceled claims 2, 3, 15, 16. The pending claims are claims 1, 4-14, 17-31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4.. Claim(s) 1, 4-14, 17-23, 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al., US 2022/0102713, in view of Ji et al., Carbon 47, and in further view of Oh et al., EP 3968406 (US 2022/0255060).
Regarding claim 1, Ansari et al., teaches an electrochemical cell (0026) comprising:
a silicon-dominant anode (abstract; 0005; 0008);
a cathode (0013; 0026; 0028);
a separator (0026; 0029); and
an electrolyte (0028; 0030);
wherein the silicon-dominant anode comprises an anode active material (0033; 0043) and a carbon-based additive (0033; 0037; 0040); wherein, silicon-dominant anode has a final composition of more than 50% (0059), silicon-based particles (0059), more than zero (0059).
Ansari et al., does not teach forming a mesh structure comprising carbon fibers and/or tubes connected to each other.
Ji et al., teaches an electrochemical cell (pg. 3219, Intro. Col. 1) comprising an anode active material with silicon nanoparticles (abstract) and a carbon-based additive (pg. 3219, col. 2) comprising carbon fibers connected to each other (carbon/silicon composite nanofiber) (pg. 3220, col. 1) in the form of a mesh or net structure (Fig. 2).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Ji et al., into the teachings of Ansari et al., because Ji teaches “carbon materials show advantages because they can buffer the volume changes of Si particles and provide good electrical contact during Li insertion and extraction [9-12]. Therefore, dispersing Si nanoparticles into carbon matrices is a promising approach to combine the advantageous properties of carbon (long cycle life) and silicon (high lithium-storage capacity) to improve the overall electrochemical performance of LiBs.” (pg. 3219, col. 2).
Ansari and Ji do not teach the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes is up to 3% by weight of the anode active material.
Oh et al., teaches a negative electrode active material (abstract), the active material containing a silicon-based active material (0013-0014) and a carbon-based active material (0013-0014), and carbon nanotube aggregates (abstract), wherein the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes (0023-0025) and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes (0016; 0024; 0040) is up to 3% by weight of the anode and at least 0.1% active material (0060); (0.2 wt% to 1 wt%; 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%) (0085).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Oh into the teachings of Ansari modified by Ji because Oh teaches:
“[0010] The present invention is directed to providing a negative electrode in which both a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material are used, wherein a specific amount of single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates is used and thus electrical connection is capable of being maintained between active materials even when volume expansion/contraction occurs due to charging and discharging of the active material and lifetime characteristics of a negative electrode and a secondary battery are improved.
[0016] A negative electrode according to the present invention comprises a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material and comprises a specific amount of single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates. The specific amount of the single-walled carbon nanotube aggregates can form a stable conductive network in a negative electrode active material layer due to its long fiber length and high conductivity, and thus the electrical connection between active materials can be maintained even when the negative electrode active material is volumetrically expanded/contracted due to charging and discharging, resulting in an improvement in lifetime characteristics of the negative electrode and a secondary battery.
[0025] In addition, since the negative electrode according to the present invention comprises a specific amount of SWCNT aggregates in the negative electrode active material layer, it is possible to stably and sufficiently form a conductive network, thereby improving the lifetime characteristics of the negative electrode, and it is possible to prevent efficiency degradation due to side reactions caused by excessive addition of the SWCNT aggregates.”
Although the prior art of record does not recite “high-aspect ratio CNT”, it is assumed that the carbon nanotubes in the prior art of record, are high-aspect ratio carbon nanotubes, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a high-aspect ratio for the CNT.
The Application teaches:
“using high-aspect ratio CNT can improve conductivity of the electrode and alleviate the electrode cracking and disintegration during repeated cycling and reduce the anode expansion during lithiation upon charging.” (0028).
But since “high-aspect ratio CNT” is not defined numerically, Oh et al., teaches “SWNT aggregates may have an average aspect ratio of 300 to 1,500…when the SWCNT aggregates have an average aspect ratio within the above described range, a sufficient amount of SWCNT aggregates may be present in the negative electrode and thus a uniform and sufficient conductive network may be formed on the negative electrode.” (0059). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a “high-aspect” ratio for the CNT, even if the ratio for the CNT is not labeled as “high-aspect”.
Regarding claim 4, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the silicon-dominant anode has an expansion of less than 1%, or less than 0.8%, with density higher than 1 gm/cm%, or higher than 1.1 g/cm’ (Table 16).
Ansari et al., does not recite a mesh or net structure.
Ji et al., teaches the form of a mesh or net structure (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ansari et al., teaches the silicon-dominant anode structure, resistance less than 5, less than 2, or less than 1.64 ohm (Tables 4 and 18).
Ansari does not teach a mesh or net structure.
Ji et al., teaches the form of a mesh or net structure (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ansari et al., teaches the silicon-dominant anode comprises a pyrolyzed carbon-based binder (0042-0043; 0054; 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Ansari et al., teaches the slurry comprises a precursor for the pyrolyzed carbon-based binder (0061; 0065; 0106).
Regarding claim 8, Ansari et al., teaches the precursor for the pyrolyzed carbon-based binder is dispersed in an organic based solvent (0021; 0040-0042).
Regarding claim 9, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the organic based solvent used in the slurry comprises N-Methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) based solvent (0010; 0042; 0097).
Regarding claim 10, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the pyrolyzed carbon-based binder comprises a pyrolytic carbon derived from polyamide-imide (PAI) (0010; 0014; 0118-0119).
Regarding claim 11, Ansari et al., teaches the slurry further comprises polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) solution in water (0098; 0147; Table 2).
Regarding claim 12, Ansari et al., teaches the slurry further comprises a surfactant (abstract; 0044; 0099).
Regarding claim 13, Ansari et al., teaches slurry used to make electrodes of claim 1, wherein a precursor for the carbon- based additive is dispersed in water (0042; 0096).
Regarding claim 14, Ansari et al., teaches a method comprising:
mixing a slurry for use in anodes (0013; 0042), the slurry comprising an anode active material and a carbon-based additive; and forming an anode using the slurry (0099); wherein: the anode active material yields a silicon-dominant anode (abstract; 0005) when the slurry is used in forming the anode (0042; 0099).
Ansari et al., does not teach forming a mesh structure comprising carbon fibers and/or tubes connected to each other.
Ji et al., teaches an electrochemical cell (pg. 3219, Intro. Col. 1) comprising an anode active material with silicon nanoparticles (abstract) and a carbon-based additive (pg. 3219, col. 2) comprising carbon fibers connected to each other (carbon/silicon composite nanofiber) (pg. 3220, col. 1) in the form of a mesh or net structure (Fig. 2).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to insert the teachings of Ji et al., into the teachings of Ansari et al., because Ji teaches “carbon materials show advantages because they can buffer the volume changes of Si particles and provide good electrical contact during Li insertion and extraction [9-12]. Therefore, dispersing Si nanoparticles into carbon matrices is a promising approach to combine the advantageous properties of carbon (long cycle life) and silicon (high lithium-storage capacity) to improve the overall electrochemical performance of LiBs.” (pg. 3219, col. 2).
Ansari and Ji do not teach the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes is up to 3% by weight of the anode active material.
Oh et al., teaches a negative electrode active material (abstract), the active material containing a silicon-based active material (0013-0014) and a carbon-based active material (0013-0014), and carbon nanotube aggregates (abstract), wherein the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes (0023-0025) and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes (0016; 0024; 0040) is up to 3% by weight of the anode and at least 0.1% active material (0060); (0.2 wt% to 1 wt%; 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%) (0083).
Although the prior art of record does not recite “high-aspect ratio CNT”, it is assumed that the carbon nanotubes in the prior art of record, are high-aspect ratio carbon nanotubes, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a high-aspect ratio for the CNT.
The Application teaches:
“using high-aspect ratio CNT can improve conductivity of the electrode and alleviate the electrode cracking and disintegration during repeated cycling and reduce the anode expansion during lithiation upon charging.” (0028).
But since “high-aspect ratio CNT” is not defined numerically, Oh et al., teaches “SWNT aggregates may have an average aspect ratio of 300 to 1,500…when the SWCNT aggregates have an average aspect ratio within the above described range, a sufficient amount of SWCNT aggregates may be present in the negative electrode and thus a uniform and sufficient conductive network may be formed on the negative electrode.” (0059). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a “high-aspect” ratio for the CNT, even if the ratio for the CNT is not labeled as “high-aspect”.
Regarding claim 17, Ansari et al., teaches wherein the silicon-dominant anode has, as a result of forming of the mesh-like structure (0057), an expansion of less than 1%, or less than 0.8% (Table 14), with density higher than 1 gm/cm’, or higher than 1.1 g/cm (Table 16).
Regarding claim 18, Ansari et al., teaches the silicon-dominant anode has, as a result of forming of the mesh-like structure (0057), resistance less than 2 ohms, or less than 1.64 ohms (Tables 4 and 18).
Regarding claim 19, Ansari et al., teaches comprising forming the silicon-dominant anode using a direct coating process of the slurry on a current collector to provide a coated anode (0009; 0041; 0096; 0117; 0133).
Regarding claim 20, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising calendaring the coated anode (0144; 0147; 0179).
Regarding claim 21, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising calendaring the coated anode at 70 °C (0144; 0147; 0179).
Regarding claim 22, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising pyrolyzing the coated anode at >500 °C (0118; 0136), 5 °C/min ramp (0144), and 60-120 min dwell time (0144) under Argon (Ar) atmosphere (0144; 0147; 0150; 0153).
Regarding claim 23, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising pyrolyzing the coated anode at >500 °C (0118; 0136), 5 °C/min ramp (0144), and 60-120 min dwell time (0144) under Ar/H2 forming gas (0144; 0147; 0150; 0153).
Regarding claim 25, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising pyrolyzing the coated anode at >500 °C (0118; 0136), 5 °C/min ramp (0144), and 120-180 min dwell time (0144) under Argon (Ar) atmosphere (0144; 0147; 0150; 0153).
Regarding claims 26-27, Ansari et al., teaches the carbon-based additive comprises cross- linked carbon nanotubes (CNT) (0037; 0061; 0063; 0109).
Regarding claim 28, Ansari et al., teaches after formation (0041; 0100), the silicon-dominant anode has a final composition of about 90% silicon (0059), about 9.5% carbon (0061).
Ansari does not teach 0.5% CNT.
Oh et al., teaches a negative electrode active material (abstract), the active material containing a silicon-based active material (0013-0014) and a carbon-based active material (0013-0014), and carbon nanotube aggregates (abstract), wherein the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes (0023-0025) and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes (0016; 0024; 0040) is up to 3% by weight of the anode active material (0.008 wt% to 0.055 wt%; 0.015 wt% to 0.035 wt%) (0060); (0.2 wt% to 1 wt%; 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%) (0083).
Regarding claim 29, Ansari et al., teaches after formation (0041; 0100), the silicon-dominant anode has a final composition of about 90% silicon (0059), about 9.5% carbon (0061).
Ansari does not teach 0.5% CNT.
Oh et al., teaches a negative electrode active material (abstract), the active material containing a silicon-based active material (0013-0014) and a carbon-based active material (0013-0014), and carbon nanotube aggregates (abstract), wherein the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes (0023-0025) and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes (0016; 0024; 0040) is up to 3% by weight of the anode active material (0.008 wt% to 0.055 wt%; 0.015 wt% to 0.035 wt%) (0060); (0.2 wt% to 1 wt%; 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%) (0083).
Regarding claim 30, Ansari et al., does not teach wherein the connected carbon nanotubes (CNTs) comprise high-aspect ratio CNT.
Although the prior art of record does not recite “high-aspect ratio CNT”, it is assumed that the carbon nanotubes in the prior art of record, are high-aspect ratio carbon nanotubes, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a high-aspect ratio for the CNT.
The Application teaches:
“using high-aspect ratio CNT can improve conductivity of the electrode and alleviate the electrode cracking and disintegration during repeated cycling and reduce the anode expansion during lithiation upon charging.” (0028).
But since “high-aspect ratio CNT” is not defined numerically, Oh et al., teaches “SWNT aggregates may have an average aspect ratio of 300 to 1,500…when the SWCNT aggregates have an average aspect ratio within the above described range, a sufficient amount of SWCNT aggregates may be present in the negative electrode and thus a uniform and sufficient conductive network may be formed on the negative electrode.” (0059). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a “high-aspect” ratio for the CNT, even if the ratio for the CNT is not labeled as “high-aspect”.
Regarding claim 31, Ansari et al., does not teach wherein the connected carbon nanotubes (CNTs) comprise high-aspect ratio CNT.
Although the prior art of record does not recite “high-aspect ratio CNT”, it is assumed that the carbon nanotubes in the prior art of record, are high-aspect ratio carbon nanotubes, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a high-aspect ratio for the CNT.
The Application teaches:
“using high-aspect ratio CNT can improve conductivity of the electrode and alleviate the electrode cracking and disintegration during repeated cycling and reduce the anode expansion during lithiation upon charging.” (0028).
But since “high-aspect ratio CNT” is not defined numerically, Oh et al., teaches “SWNT aggregates may have an average aspect ratio of 300 to 1,500…when the SWCNT aggregates have an average aspect ratio within the above described range, a sufficient amount of SWCNT aggregates may be present in the negative electrode and thus a uniform and sufficient conductive network may be formed on the negative electrode.” (0059). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ carbon nanotubes having a “high-aspect” ratio for the CNT, even if the ratio for the CNT is not labeled as “high-aspect”.
5. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansari et al., US 2022/0102713, in view of Ji et al., Carbon 47, and in further view of Patolsky et al., US 2020/0358083.
Regarding claim 24, Ansari et al., teaches further comprising pyrolyzing the coated anode at >500 °C (0118; 0136), 5 °C/min ramp (0144), and 120-180 min dwell time (0144).
Ansari does not teach under N2 nitrogen gas.
Patolsky teaches the gaseous environment includes at least one of nitrogen or argon gas (0078; 0337).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Patolsky into the teachings of Ansari because Patolsky teaches that either of nitrogen or argon gas may be employed in the manufacturing of the electrode.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Applicant submits that the Office Action fails to show that the combination of Ansari, Ji, and Oh teaches or suggests a silicon-dominant anode comprising a conductive network that comprises connected carbon nanotubes (CNTs) at low concentration, with the low concentration being <1%, <0.5%, or <0.25%.”
However, Oh et al., teaches a negative electrode active material (abstract), the active material containing a silicon-based active material (0013-0014) and a carbon-based active material (0013-0014), and carbon nanotube aggregates (abstract), wherein the carbon-based additive comprises connected carbon nanotubes (0023-0025) and an amount of connected carbon nanotubes (0016; 0024; 0040) is up to 3% by weight of the anode and at least 0.1% active material (0060); (0.2 wt% to 1 wt%; 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%) (0083). Therefore, Ansari modified by Oh teaches anode comprising a conductive network having a concentration of at least 0.1% active material (0060); or 0.2 wt% to 1 wt% or 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%) (0085; Oh et al.).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the teachings of Oh into the teachings of Ansari because Oh teaches “a conductive network in the negative electrode active material layer, thereby improving both lifetime characteristics and efficiency characteristics.” (0045).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
