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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-25 and 27 have been cancelled. Claims 26 and 28 are a currently amended. Claim 29 is as previously presented. Claims 30-43 are newly added. Claims 26, 28-43 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 26, 28-36, 38, and 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 108807861 A) and in view of Akasaka (JP 6432520 B2) and Guo (CN109411757A, as cited in the IDS filed 06/10/2022; citations are in reference to translation uploaded with present office action).
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses a method of fabricating an anode for a lithium-ion battery [0077, Li], comprising the steps of: mixing micro-silicon and one or more inert solvents to produce a wet slurry mixture [0077, Li]; and milling the wet slurry mixture of the micro-silicon and the one or more inert solvents to obtain nano-silicon [0077, Li], wherein the mixture is retained as a wet slurry mixture during milling [0077, Li discloses a drying step occurs after milling]; milling a mixture of the nano-silicon [0077, Li], one or more carbonaceous materials and one or more solvents [0029-0032, Li], wherein the mixture is retained as a wet slurry during milling [0026-0035, 0077, a drying step occurs after milling]; carbonizing the mixture at a carbonization temperature to produce a silicon coated with carbon (Si@C) material [0036-0037, 0077, Li]; mixing a second mixture of the Si@C material [0042, 0077, Li], wherein the carbonization temperature ranges from 500-1400oC [0037, Li’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC], one or more second carbonaceous materials and one or more second solvents [0042-0044, Li], wherein the second mixture is retained as a second wet slurry during milling [0045-0046, 0078, Li discloses a drying step after mixing]; carbonizing the second mixture at a second carbonization temperature to produce a Si@C/carbon (“graphite”)/carbon material [0046, 0078], wherein the second carbonization temperature ranges from 500-1400oC [0046, Li’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC]; mixing the Si@C/ carbon (“graphite”)/carbon material with a binder [0080, Li] to produce a slurry [0080, Li]; coating the slurry [0080, Li]; and drying [0080, Li] the slurry to form the anode [0080, Li].
However, Li is silent to a second milling step, using graphite, disposing the slurry containing the electrode active material onto a metallic member, and the nature of the binder used.
Akasaka however, discloses using milling [0295, Akasaka] in a second mixture of Si@C material with graphite and a carbonaceous material[0257-0260, Akasaka]. As well as, dispensing a slurry containing a rubber polymer as a binder [0313, Akasaka] of the Si@C/graphite/carbonaceous material onto a copper metallic member [0325, Akasaka].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li to include mixing the Si@C with graphite in the second milling step. Graphite is a known conductive carbon material capable of providing a conduction path between active materials (i.e. Si@C) and allowing for a battery with higher capacity, excellent cycle characteristics, and lower initial loss [0007-0013, 0016, Akasaka]. Additionally, including graphite in the second milling step with Si@C allows for uniformly mixing the two materials [0295, Akasaka]. Finally, the use of styrene-butadiene as a rubber polymer is readily available and can reduce the swelling of the active material, and dispensing the electrode active material onto a metal member, such as a copper current collector which is common and known in the art [0325, Akasaka].
In an effort to expedite prosecution the examiner notes that Akasaka discloses a preferred firing range for carbonizing a silicon carbon composite of 900-1200oC [0149, Akasaka]. This disclosed range also overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 925-1000oC.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Li and Akasaka are silent to the use of a linear, conductive, and self-healing polymer.
However, Guo teaches of a binder for silicon-based anodes of lithium-ion batteries [0002, Guo]. The binder comprising a linear, conductive, and self-healing polymer [0015, Guo]. The conductive polymer may be PEDOT:PSS and/or PPY [0018, Guo]. The self-healing polymer may be UPY, DMA, and/or Da [0019, Guo].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li such that the binder composition additionally comprised a linear, conductive (such as, PEDOT:PSS and/or PPY), and self-healing (such as, UPY, DMA, and/or Da) polymer. Doing so can provide a multifunctional polymer composite binder that would include having multiple network structures, conductivity, and self-healing properties [0013, Guo].
Regarding claim 28, Li as modified above discloses an anode for a lithium-ion battery [abstract, 0048-0050, Li; 0016-0018, Akasaka].
Li and Akasaka disclose a silicon-carbon composite anode for a lithium-ion battery. The method of which was discussed in the rejection of claim 26.
Regarding claim 29, Li as modified above discloses a lithium-ion battery [abstract, 0048-0050, Li; 0020, Akasaka], comprising: an anode [abstract, 0048-0050, Li ; 0020, Akasaka; a cathode [0082, Li; 0020, Akasaka]; and an electrolyte and/or a separator positioned between the anode and the cathode [0082, Li; 0357, Akasaka].
Regarding claim 30, Li as modified above discloses a method, further comprising the step of drying the wet slurry at a drying temperature prior to carbonizing the mixture [0022, Li].
Li is silent to the drying temperature being between 70-150oC.
However, Akasaka discloses dry a slurry at 150oC prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka’s disclosure anticipates the applicants claimed range of a drying temperature equal to or between 70-150oC].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to dry a wet slurry at a temperature of 150oC as this is a known temperature to dry a slurry prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka]
Regarding claim 31, Li as modified above discloses a method, further comprising the step of drying the second wet slurry at a second drying temperature prior to carbonizing the second mixture [0078, Li].
Li discloses spray-drying the second wet slurry prior to carbonization [0077-0078, Li], but is silent to the drying temperature being between 70-150oC.
However, Akasaka discloses dry a slurry at 150oC prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka’s disclosure anticipates the applicants claimed range of a drying temperature equal to or between 70-150oC].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to dry a second wet slurry at a temperature of 150oC as this is a known temperature to dry a slurry prior to carbonization [0386-0388, Akasaka].
Regarding claim 32, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the nano-silicon and the one or more carbonaceous materials are mixed in a mass ratio (nano-silicon : carbonaceous material) of equal to or between 40:60 to 70:30 [0077-0078, Li discloses that 1000 g of silicon is mixed with 290 g of a first carbonaceous material (CNT, ketjen black, glucose). This first mixture has 77.5% silicon, of this first mixture 536 g is taken and mixed with 429 g of the second carbonaceous material. Therefore, 415.5 g of silicon is mixed with 120.5 g of the first carbonaceous material and 429 g of the second carbonaceous material. The ratio of nano-silicon : carbonaceous material is 43:57 which anticipates the applicants range].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 33, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the average particle size of the nano-silicon is equal to or between 50 nm and 500 nm [0077, Li discloses that silicon powder was milled to a size of 0.4 µm prior to mixing with a carbonaceous material, which anticipates the applicants claimed range].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 34, Li as modified above discloses a method, wherein the graphite is flake graphite or graphite particles (“microspheres”) having an average size of 1µm to 50µm [0176-0177, 0258-0260, Akasaka discloses using graphite particles which overlap with the applicant’s claimed range of 1-20 µm].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 35, Li as modified above is silent to the mass ratio of the Si@C material : graphite : second carbonaceous material.
However, Akasaka discloses wherein the Si@C material, the graphite and the one or more second carbonaceous materials are mixed in a mass ratio (Si@C material : graphite : second carbonaceous material) of 10-30:40-80:10-30 [0272, 0293, Akasaka].
Akasaka discloses that the composite graphite particles (B) to silicon composite carbon particles (A) are present in a mass % (B:A) of 0-90 [0293, Akasaka]. Therefore, if A is present in 30 mass % then B will be present in 70 mass % (A:B; 30:70). In B, the carbonaceous material to graphite particles are present in a mass ratio of 0.01-20 mass %. Therefore, if 20 mass % of B is carbonaceous material, then the 70 mass% of B used in the composite above becomes 30:56:14 (Si@C:graphite:second carbonaceous material). Which overlaps with the applicants claimed range.
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Li to include the active material ratios disclosed by Akasaka as if the content of carbonaceous material is too high then when rolling is performed with sufficient pressure the carbon material is damaged and material destruction occurs, which tends to lead to an increase in irreversible charge/discharge capacity during the initial cycles and a decrease in initial efficiency. On the other hand, if the content is too small, it tends to be difficult to obtain the effect of the coating [0273-0274, Akasaka]. Additionally, if the ratio of Si@C is too high the initial efficiency of the nonaqueous secondary battery tends to decrease, and the electrode plate strength tends to decrease. Moreover, if the ratio of Si@C is too small then the capacity tends to decrease.
Furthermore, the ratios in which the active ingredients are present is a matter of mere routine optimization baring any criticality or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 36, Li as modified above discloses the method, wherein, during the milling of the second mixture, the Si@C material comes in contact with ("integrated with”) the graphite and further coated by the one or more second carbonaceous materials [0042, Li; 0295, Akasaka].
Regarding claim 38, Li as modified above discloses the one or more linear polymers comprise sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), the one or more conductive polymers comprise polypyrrole (PPY), the one or more self-healing polymers comprise dopamine (DA), and the one or more rubber polymers comprise styrene butadiene rubber (SBR).
Li as presently modified is explicitly silent to which linear polymer is used.
However, Guo teaches that the linear polymer may be sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) [0017, Guo].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li such that the linear polymer was sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). This is a common binder and known linear polymer used in lithium ion-batteries [0006, 0017, Guo].
Regarding claim 40, Li as modified above discloses the method, wherein the Si@C/graphite/carbon material, a conductive agent, and the multi-functional polymer binder are mixed in a mass ratio of 80:10:10 [0080, Li].
The teachings of Li anticipate the applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 41, Li as presently modified discloses the metallic member is a copper foil where the active material is applied to as a slurry and dried [0324-0328, Akasaka].
Li as presently modified is silent to the temperature and duration of the drying process. However, Akasaka teaches that when drying a slurry material the temperature range is preferable between 40-300oC and the time may range from 1-24 hours [0103, Akasaka]. Akasaka notes that the drying time is depending upon the type of solvent used and that if necessary one may dry under reduced pressure to reach a desired drying time [0103]. Akasaka continues to teach that drying temperatures are preferably between 100-250oC as a way to expedite drying while preventing decomposition of the binder/polymer [0198, Akasaka].
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that the drying temperature and time is dependent upon the solvent used and desired rate at which the solvent is evaporated [0103, 0198, Akasaka]. As such, the temperature and time at which the drying step occurs is a result-effective variable dependent upon the users preferred solvent, see MPEP 2144.05.II.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to dry the slurry coated on the copper metallic member at a temperature of 100oC for 12 hours. This is a known temperature and duration for drying common solvents used in making slurries for electrodes [0103, Akasaka].
Regarding claim 42, Li as modified above discloses the conductive polymers comprising PPy and/or PEDOT:PSS [0018, Guo].
Regarding claim 43, Li as modified above discloses the self-healing polymer consisting of UPy and/or DMA [0019, Guo]
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Ren (US20160211511A1).
Regarding claim 37, modified Li is silent to the use of a graphite matrix.
However, Ren discloses a nano-silicon composite negative electrode material deposited into a graphite matrix [0009, Ren]. An addition amorphous carbon coating layer (“second carbon coating”) and nano-conductive material coating layer [0013, Ren].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li such that the graphite in the Si@C/graphite/carbon material was a graphite matrix.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US20120021265A1).
Regarding claim 39, Li as presently modified is silent to the ratio of the linear polymers to conductive polymers to self-healing polymers to rubber polymers being present in a mass ratio of 40:20:20:20 (reduced form 2:1:1:1).
However, Guo discloses that the weight ratio of linear polymer to conductive polymer to self-healing polymer ranges from 10-80: 10-60: 10-60 [0015, Guo]. Guo discloses explicit examples where the ratio of linear:conductive:self-healing polymer is within the above range including embodiment 7 where the ratio is 50:30:20 (reduced form: 2.5:1.5:1) [0051, Guo].
Takahashi discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery [0011, Takahashi], where the negative electrode may include graphite, carbon materials, graphitizable carbon, and silicon [0084, Takahashi]. The binder for the negative electrode includes CMC (“linear polymer”) and SBR (“rubber polymer”) in a 2:1 ratio [0043, Takahashi].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Li such that the ratio of the linear polymers to conductive polymers to self-healing polymers to rubber polymers in the binder was either:
A) embodiment 7 was modified to include the rubber binder (SBR) in a ratio of 50:30:20:25 (equivalent to: 40:24:16:20).
B) the ratio of the ratio of linear polymer to rubber polymer was 2:1 [0043, Takahashi] and the ratio of linear:conductive:self-healing was 50:25:25 (reduced form 2:1:1) [0015, Guo]. Such that the ratio of linear:conductive:self-healing:rubber polymer was (2:1:1:1).
Doing so would a binder with known ratios of linear polymers to rubber polymers and linear polymers to conductive/self-healing polymers.
a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05)
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 (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below.
The examiner thanks the applicant for the updated IDS. The reference has now been considered.
Applicant argues that Li and Akasaka do not teach the claimed second wet-slurry Si@C/graphite/carbon-forming step. However, the applicant’s arguments largely attack the references individually.
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).
The applicant’s cited support for their arguments towards Li consists of six paragraphs that ignore the full depths of their teachings as cited by the examiner above in the rejection of claim 26. The examiner acknowledged that Li is silent to the use of graphite. Applicant’s arguments towards Li teaching “a silicon/first carbon-precursor mixture”, not reading on “a later wet-slurry mixture of performed Si@C material, graphite, and second carbonaceous material”.
Akasaka is introduced to overcome the deficiencies of Li (such as the use of graphite). Applicant then argues that the teachings of Akasaka which include mixing a silicon-carbon composite with graphite are not applicable to the rejection as Akasaka’s graphite is alleged to be “directed to separate polymer-composite graphite particles that are mixed with Si composite carbons”. The examiner notes the following A) arguments towards the presence or absence of a polymer with the graphite are not commensurate with the scope of claim 26. B) as pointed to by the applicant Akasaka teaches of the mixing of silicon composite carbon compounds (Si@C) and graphite, this reads on the applicant’s claimed limitations.
Applicant then argues that Akasaka may not be relied upon for general proposition that graphite be included in a negative-electrode material. The examiner finds this to be unpersuasive as it does not reflect the fact that Akasaka teachings are not as simple as alleged by the applicant. As pointed to by the applicant and examiner, Akasaka teaches of the mixing of a silicon composite carbon (Si@C) and graphite. Including the teachings that carbonaceous “other materials” (“second carbonaceous materials”) may be mixed with the Si@C and graphite [0297-0300, Akasaka]. Additionally, the arguments that this mixture is not to be wet milled is not commensurate with the scope of modified Li, as Akasaka is not relied upon for these limitations. As such these arguments are unpersuasive.
Finally applicant argues that Akasaka may not be relied upon for “general proposition that graphite may be included in a negative-electrode material”. The is unpersuaded by this stance and the arguments used to support it. Akasaka does not only teach that graphite may be included in a negative-electrode. But rather they teach that a silicon-carbon composite (Si@C) and graphite may be mixed together and a cohesive negative-electrode material.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Cao and Kim in claim(s) 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on these reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant then argues that the examiner’s argument in hindsight driven.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Within the rejection above the only information and knowledge presented by the examiner is that which is within the prior art and within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention and not gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure.
Within the applicant’s arguments they pull arguments and limitations from the instant specification. To which the examiner notes,
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.", see MPEP 2111.01.II
"Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.", see MPEP 2145.VI.
Applicant’s arguments towards criticality are additionally unpersuasive as their cited examples are not commensurate with the scope of claim 26.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights