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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/790,878 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-15 are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections
The arguments in regards to the objections of the specification and claims filed on 11/03/2025 were found persuasive and the previous objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed on 11/03/2025 have been fully considered and were found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejections of record. However, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted and new prior art has been identified and a new rejection has been applied rendering the previous arguments moot. See claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-15 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (In Situ synthesis of SiC-graphene core-shell nanoparticles using wet ball milling, 15 February 2018, Ceramics International, Volume 44) with evidentiary references Tanaka et al. (Specific volume and viscosity of ethanol-water mixtures under high pressure) as evidenced by Diversified Enterprises (Surface Tension, Hansen Solubility Parameters, Molar Volume, Enthalpy of Evaporation, and Molecular Weight of Selected Liquids), and further in view of Tonegawa et al. (US-20140199475-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a method for producing particles (see e.g., "In Situ synthesis" in Title of Zhang), the particles comprising:
a particle body (see e.g. “SiC nano particles” in Abstact); and
a covering layer covering at least a part of the particle body (see e.g. “The SiC nanoparticles are well dispersed and individually wrapped by the GNSs.” and “synthesis of nanoparticle-graphene core-shell structures” in Introduction Section paragraph beginning with “In this work,” on page 8284),
the method comprising:
a step of preparing a mixture containing the particle body (see e.g. "as-received β-SiC nanoparticles (~45nm, Alpha Aesar)" in Experimental Section), a layered compound (see e.g. "graphite flakes (< 20µm, Aldrich Sigma)" in Experimental Section), and a dispersion medium (see e.g. "About 40ml of ethanol and distilled water solution (volume ratio=2:3) was added into the jar as a milling medium or process control agent." in Experimental Section), and
a step of applying a shear force to the mixture (see e.g. "planetary ball mill" in Experimental Section), wherein the layered compound contains graphite or a graphite-like layered compound (see e.g. "graphite flakes" in Abstract), and the dispersion medium has a viscosity at 25°C of 2.148 mPa-s (see e.g. Table 5 of Specific volume and viscosity of ethanol-water mixtures under high pressure; which shows the viscosity of a 40% ethanol/water mixture at atmospheric pressure and room temperature is 2.148 mPa-s).
Zhang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Zhang does not disclose that the shear force is applied to the mixture in a state where the mixture is cooled to increase its viscosity to exfoliate the layered compound and cover the particle body with the layered compound to form the covering layer.
Tonegawa, however, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method for producing particles to be used in battery electrodes, comprising a step in which a shear force is applied to a mixture while the mixture is cooled (see e.g. “heating was discontinued and the suspension was allowed to cool to room temperature while continuing to stir” in paragraph [0117] of Tonegawa). While Tonegawa does not explicitly state that this cooling increases the viscosity in order to exfoliate the layered compound and cover the particle body with the layered compound, Tonegawa does disclose that a shell layer over the particles can be formed in this manner (see e.g. paragraph [0117] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that cooling the mixture while applying a shear force would increase the viscosity sufficiently to promote formation of a covering layer over the particle body, as such a result would have been a predictable variation of Tonegawa’s teachings.
Tonegawa also teaches that performing this step for producing particles used in battery electrodes results in a battery demonstrating cycle characteristics superior to other batteries known in the art (see e.g., paragraphs [0156]-[0160] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhang et al. with the teachings of Tonegawa et al. in order to have a battery demonstrating superior cycle characteristics when compared to those used in the art as taught by Tonegawa.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Zhang further discloses that the dispersion medium is in the liquid state (see e.g. "40ml of ethanol and distilled water solution (volume ratio=2:3) was added into the jar as a milling medium or process control agent." in Experimental Section). A 40% ethanol/water mixture at atmospheric pressure and room temperature is a liquid.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Zhang does further disclose that the dispersion medium is a 40% ethanol / 60% water mixture (see, e.g., “About 40ml of ethanol and distilled water solution (volume ratio=2:3) was added into the jar as a milling medium or process control agent.” in the Experimental Section), however, Zhang in view of Tonegawa does not explicitly disclose that the dispersion medium has an SP value of 5 or more and 20 or less, however,
While Zhang does not state the SP value of this specific mixture, ethanol is known to have an SP value of 12.96 (cal/cm³)½ and water is known to have an SP value of 23.37 (cal/cm³)½. (These values are reported in Surface Tension, Hansen Solubility Parameters, Molar Volume, Enthalpy of Evaporation, and Molecular Weight of Selected Liquids (attached NPL), where ethanol and water are listed with Hansen solubility parameters of 26.5 MPa½ and 47.8 MPa½, respectively. These values were converted to (cal/cm³)½ by dividing by 2.0455, as explained in note 7 on page 5 of the NPL). Given the use of a 40/60 ethanol/water mixture, widely known methods such as Fedors’ method or empirical mixing rules, such as those described in paragraph [0056] of the instant specification, would yield an SP value that falls between 5 and 20. Therefore, the dispersion medium disclosed by Zhang inherently possesses an SP value within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.01 (III).
Furthermore, while Zhang in view of Tonegawa does not explicitly disclose what the SP value of the ethanol/water dispersion medium is and an evidentiary reference is relied upon. Zhang in view of Tonegawa does disclose a dispersion medium that is an ethanol/water mixture which according to the instant specification is one of the dispersion mediums that may be used (see e.g. paragraph [0054] of the instant application). Because of this it is expected that the dispersion media of the prior art would have a SP value within the rage claimed by the instant application and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Zhang further discloses that the dispersion medium is a 40% ethanol / 60% water mixture (see, e.g., “About 40ml of ethanol and distilled water solution (volume ratio=2:3) was added into the jar as a milling medium or process control agent.” in the Experimental Section). This dispersion medium contains ethanol as a solvent, ethanol has a molecular weight of 46.07 g/mol (see e.g. molecular weight of ethanol on page 3 as reported in Surface Tension, Hansen Solubility Parameters, Molar Volume, Enthalpy of Evaporation, and Molecular Weight of Selected Liquids).
Zhang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Furthermore, while Zhang in view of Tonegawa does not explicitly disclose what the SP value of the ethanol/water dispersion medium is and an evidentiary reference is relied upon. Zhang in view of Tonegawa does disclose a dispersion medium that is an ethanol/water mixture which according to the instant specification is one of the dispersion mediums that may be used (see e.g. paragraph [0054] of the instant application). Because of this it is expected that the dispersion media of the prior art would have a SP value within the rage claimed by the instant application and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Zhang further discloses that the particle body has an average particle diameter of 45 nm (see e.g. "as-received β-SiC nanoparticles (~45nm, Alpha Aesar)" in Experimental Section of Zhang).
Zhang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Zhang further discloses that the particle body has a density of 3200 kg/m3 (see e.g. Table 2 density of SiC nanoparticles). 3200 kg/m3 is equivalent to 3.2 g/cm3.
Zhang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Zhang does not disclose that the particle body is a metal or a metal compound. Tonegawa, however, discloses that the particle body is lithium metal phosphate having the composition LiMnPO4 (see e.g. "a core portion composed of a lithium metal phosphate having the composition LiMnPO4" in paragraph [0116] of Tonegawa).
Tonegawa also teaches that performing this step for producing particles used in battery electrodes results in a battery demonstrating cycle characteristics superior to other batteries known in the art (see e.g., paragraphs [0156]-[0160] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhang et al. with the teachings of Tonegawa et al. in order to have a battery demonstrating superior cycle characteristics when compared to those used in the art as taught by Tonegawa.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above). Zhang further discloses that the shear force is applied by ball mill (see e.g. "The mixed powders were wet milled in a planetary ball mill" in Experimental Section).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses a method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Zhang does not disclose that the method further comprises a step of removing the dispersion medium after the step of forming the covering layer.
Tonegawa, however, discloses that the method further comprises a step of removing the dispersion medium after the step of forming the covering layer (see e.g. "A shell layer having the composition LiFePO4 was formed in this manner." in paragraph [0117] and "Next, after cooling to room temperature, the suspension present in the reaction vessel was removed from the autoclave and subjected to solid-liquid separation with a centrifuge. A procedure consisting of discarding the resulting supernatant" in paragraph [0118] of Tonegawa).
Tonegawa also teaches that performing this step for producing particles used in battery electrodes results in a battery demonstrating cycle characteristics superior to other batteries known in the art (see e.g., paragraphs [0156]-[0160] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhang et al. with the teachings of Tonegawa et al. in order to have a battery demonstrating superior cycle characteristics when compared to those used in the art as taught by Tonegawa.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang in view of Tonegawa disclose the method for producing particles according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above).
Zhang does not disclose that in the step of removing the dispersion medium, the dispersion medium is removed by means of solid-liquid separation or volatilization with heating or decompression.
Tonegawa, however, discloses that in the step of removing the dispersion medium, the dispersion medium is removed by means of solid-liquid separation (see e.g. "subjected to solid-liquid separation" in paragraph [0118] of Tonegawa).
Tonegawa also teaches that performing this step for producing particles used in battery electrodes results in a battery demonstrating cycle characteristics superior to other batteries known in the art (see e.g., paragraphs [0156]-[0160] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang et al. with the teachings of Tonegawa et al. in order to have a battery demonstrating superior cycle characteristics when compared to those used in the art as taught by Tonegawa.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Zhang does not disclose that the method further comprises a step of carbonizing the dispersion medium by heating after the step of forming the covering layer.
Tonegawa, however, discloses that the method further comprises a step of carbonizing the dispersion medium by heating after the step of forming the covering layer (see e.g. "Subsequently, the temperature was raised to 700° C at the rate of 100° C/hr and held at that temperature for 4 hours" in paragraph [0119] and paragraphs [0117]-[0119] of Tonegawa).
Tonegawa also teaches that performing this step for producing particles used in battery electrodes results in a battery demonstrating cycle characteristics superior to other batteries known in the art (see e.g., paragraphs [0156]-[0160] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zhang et al. with the teachings of Tonegawa et al. in order to have a battery demonstrating superior cycle characteristics when compared to those used in the art as taught by Tonegawa.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang in view of Tonegawa discloses the method for producing particles according to claim 14 (see claim 14 rejection above).
Zhang does not disclose that the method further comprises a step of removing the carbonized dispersion medium.
Tonegawa, however, discloses that the method further comprises a step of removing the carbonized dispersion medium (see e.g. "After the 4 hours had elapsed, the fired product was cooled to 100° C or lower while introducing nitrogen followed by removing from the tube furnace to obtain a positive electrode active material." in paragraph [0119] of Tonegawa).
Tonegawa also teaches that performing this step for producing particles used in battery electrodes results in a battery demonstrating cycle characteristics superior to other batteries known in the art (see e.g., paragraphs [0156]-[0160] of Tonegawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang et al. with the teachings of Tonegawa et al. in order to have a battery demonstrating superior cycle characteristics when compared to those used in the art as taught by Tonegawa.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723