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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-21, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Cho (WO-2019112107-A1) is newly applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (WO-2019112107-A1) (see translation).
Regarding claim 23, Cho discloses a method (see e.g., Cho; [0104]) for producing a powder of particles comprising amorphous or nano-crystalline silicon nitride (see e.g., Cho; [0014], [0115], see also [0260] regarding particle size), the method comprising the steps of: supplying a reactant gas containing silicon and a reactant gas containing nitrogen to a reaction chamber of a reactor (see e.g., Cho; [0104]-[0105], [0179], regarding silane and ammonia gas), wherein said reactant gas containing silicon comprises silane (see e.g., Cho; [0105], [0179]) (which corresponds with the claimed at least one of the following: a silane, a halide-substituted silane, or an alkyl silane); heating the reactant gases to thermal decomposition or reduction of the reactant gases to take place inside the reaction chamber to thereby produce a powder of silicon nitride particles (see e.g., Cho; [0108]-[0111], regarding preheating to 500-700 °C, and [0114]-[0116], regarding heating to 900-1000 °C, [0179], regarding experimental example), exposing said silicon nitride particles to oxygen or an oxygen-containing gas (see e.g., Cho; [0049], [0127], [0179], regarding air-cooling, and [0189] regarding resulting particle containing oxygen), and optionally at least partially coating the particles with organic and/or inorganic material (see e.g., Cho; [0002], [0010], regarding carbon coating).
Cho discloses an example using the method of a silicon nitride particle with 75.99 at% of silicon atoms, 13.68 at% of nitrogen atoms, and 10.32 at% of oxygen atoms (see e.g., Cho; [0277], regarding fig. 26), which corresponds with a silicon oxynitride having a chemical formula SiNXOy whereby nitrogen makes up 30-80% of said x+y value with the balance being oxygen (nitrogen makes up about 57% of the x+y value). In this particle having 75.99 at% of silicon atoms, when the formula is normalized such that the subscript of Si is 1, the x+y value of nitrogen and oxygen is about 0.316, which falls within the claimed range of 0.03-1.3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 7, 9-12, 16-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO-2019112107-A1) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses an electrode for an energy storage device which comprises a powder of particles comprising amorphous silicon oxynitride (see e.g., Cho; [0014], regarding amorphous structure, [0115], regarding amorphous structure and quasicrystals), wherein said powder of particles comprises coated (see e.g., Cho; [0010]-[0011], [0013], regarding carbon coating).
Cho discloses a silicon nitride particle with 75.99 at% of silicon atoms, 13.68 at% of nitrogen atoms, and 10.32 at% of oxygen atoms (see e.g., Cho; [0277], regarding fig. 26), which corresponds with a silicon oxynitride having a chemical formula SiNXOy whereby nitrogen makes up 30-80% of said x+y value with the balance being oxygen (nitrogen makes up about 57% of the x+y value).
In this particle having 75.99 at% of silicon atoms, when the formula is normalized such that the subscript of Si is 1, the x+y value of nitrogen and oxygen is close to but not within the upper bound of 0.3 (x+y is about 0.316). However, Cho discloses other examples whereby 0.03 < x+y < 0.3 is satisfied as claimed (see e.g., Cho; [0198], regarding example with 90.52 at% silicon atoms, 0.87 at% oxygen atoms, and 8.61 at% nitrogen atoms, which results in a x+y value of about 0.1047, table 2, regarding 81.47 at% silicon atoms, 1.31 at% oxygen atoms, and 17.22 at% nitrogen atoms, which results in an x+y value of 0.227, and 78.86 at% silicon atoms, 1.25 at% oxygen atoms, and 19.89 at% nitrogen atoms, which results in an x+y value of 0.2681). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wet-polished silicon nitride particles as disclosed by Cho by modifying the particle such that x+y is slightly lower to be 0.1047, 0.227, or 0.2681 as disclosed by Cho, which falls within the claimed range of 0.03 to 0.3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase capacity for device applications (see e.g., Cho; [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein said SiNXOy particles may have a carbon coating (see e.g., Cho; [0010]-[0011], [0013], regarding carbon coating), which corresponds to the claimed at least one of the following modifying elements: phosphorus (P), boron (B), carbon (C), sulphur (S), selenium (Se), arsenic (As), tin (Sn), magnesium (Mg), aluminium (Al), iron (Fe), germanium (Ge) and/or antimony (Sb).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein said SiNXOy particles are at least partially coated and have a core region comprising amorphous or nanocrystalline silicon oxynitride having a chemical formula SiNXOy, where 0.03 <x+y < 0.3, whereby nitrogen makes up 30-80% of said x+y value with the balance being oxygen, and at least one continuous or non-continuous shell region comprising an inorganic and/or organic material (see above regarding claim 1, wherein the silicon oxynitride core may be coated with carbon shell).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Cho discloses wherein the electrode comprises a binder and a conductive additive (see e.g., Cho; [0228]-[0229], [0241]-[0242], [0285]-[0286], regarding examples with conductive material such as super-B and SBR for the binder).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cho teaches an energy storage device (see e.g., Cho; [0052]-[0053], regarding lithium secondary battery), wherein the energy storage device comprises at least one electrode according to claim 1 (see above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Cho teaches the energy storage device according to claim 11, wherein the energy storage device is a battery (see above regarding claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cho teaches a method for producing an electrode (see e.g., Cho; [0001], [0011], [0016]-[0023]) according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises the steps of mixing a powder of particles comprising coated (see e.g., Cho; [0010]-[0011], [0013], regarding carbon coating), amorphous (see e.g., Cho; [0014], regarding amorphous structure, [0115], regarding amorphous structure and quasicrystals), silicon oxynitride having a chemical formula SiNXOy, where 0.03 x+y < 0.3, whereby nitrogen makes up 30-80% of said x+y value with the balance being oxygen (see above regarding claim 1), with a binder, optionally one or more additives (see e.g., Cho; [0228]-[0229], [0241]-[0242], [0285]-[0286], regarding examples with conductive material such as super-B and SBR for the binder), and a solvent (see e.g., Cho; [0045], regarding organic solvent, [0050], regarding wherein the solvent may be isopropyl alcohol, [0230], [0243], [0263]-[0264], [0287], regarding examples), without pH adjustments (the prior art does not disclose pH adjustments), and printing or coating said mixture on a surface of a current collector (see e.g., Cho; [0133]) and drying (see e.g., Cho; [0268]-[0269], wherein particles are dried) to form an electrode.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cho teaches the energy storage device of claim 12, wherein the battery is a Li- ion battery (see e.g., Cho; [0005], [0177], regarding lithium-ion battery application).
Regarding claim 18, modified Cho teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the one or more additives are electrically conductive additives (see above regarding claim 16).
Regarding claim 20, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein 0.03 <x+y < 0.2 (see above regarding claim 1, wherein the modification of Cho; [0198], regarding example with 90.52 at% silicon atoms, 0.87 at% oxygen atoms, and 8.61 at% nitrogen atoms, which results in a x+y value of about 0.1047, may be applied, which falls within the claimed range of 0.03-0.2).
Regarding claim 21, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. In the example above regarding claim 1, Cho does not provide that nitrogen makes up 60- 80% of said x+y value with the balance being oxygen. However, Cho discloses in the full disclosure that nitrogen atoms constituting the silicon nitride above may be 5 at% to 40 at% (see e.g., Cho; [0015], [0099], [0112], [0123], [0146], [0159]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the examples of Cho to provide nitrogen atoms at 5-40 at% as disclosed by Cho such to overlap with the claimed 60-80% of said x+y value. As an example, the example of 75.99 at% of silicon atoms, 13.68 at% of nitrogen atoms, and 10.32 at% of oxygen atoms (see e.g., Cho; [0277], regarding fig. 26) as disclosed by Cho may be modified to have 15-40 at% of nitrogen which results in nitrogen making up an x+y value that falls within the claimed range of 60-80%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the performance of secondary batteries, avoid degrading the redox reaction of the anode, and avoid performance degradation (see e.g., Cho; [0121]-[0122]).
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO-2019112107-A1) (see translation), and in further view of Anderson (WO-2017207525-A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein said SiNXOy particles have a maximum transverse dimension of 150 nm in a coated or uncoated state. However, Anderson teaches particles having maximum transverse dimension up to 100 µm or 2nm - 10 µm or 10nm -10 µm or less than 10 µm or less than 1 µm in their coated and uncoated state (see e.g., Anderson; page 8 paragraph 2, page 11 paragraph 3), which overlaps with the claimed particles having a maximum transverse dimension of 150 nm in a coated or uncoated state. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particles of Cho such that they have a maximum transverse dimension of up to 100 µm or 2nm - 10 µm or 10nm -10 µm or less than 10 µm or less than 1 µm in their coated and uncoated state as disclosed by Anderson such to improve the kinetics of the battery (see e.g., Anderson; page 11 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein said particles have a maximum transverse dimension of up to 10 μm in a coated or uncoated state. However, Anderson teaches particles having maximum transverse dimension up to 100 µm or 2nm - 10 µm or 10nm -10 µm or less than 10 µm or less than 1 µm in their coated and uncoated state (see e.g., Anderson; page 8 paragraph 2, page 11 paragraph 3), which overlaps with the claimed particles having a maximum transverse dimension of 150 nm in a coated or uncoated state. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particles of Cho such that they have a maximum transverse dimension of up to 100 µm or 2nm - 10 µm or 10nm -10 µm or less than 10 µm or less than 1 µm in their coated and uncoated state disclosed by Anderson such to improve the kinetics of the battery (see e.g., Anderson; page 11 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the SiNXOy particles comprise 0-60 atomic-% of one or more elements other than silicon and nitrogen and oxygen. However, Anderson teaches the particles comprise of lithium content in the range of 0 to 30 atomic-% or 0 to 350 atomic-% (see e.g., Anderson; page 7 paragraph 4, page 9 paragraph 4, page 11 paragraph 2), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0-60 atomic-% of one or more elements other than silicon and nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particle of Cho to comprise of lithium content in the range of 0 to 30 atomic-% or 0 to 350 atomic-% disclosed by Anderson such that the concentration of lithium matches the bulk irreversible capacity of the SiNx powder and it will not be necessary to provide cathode capacity corresponding to the irreversible capacity (see e.g., Anderson; page 10 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein said SiNXOy particles have a lithium content in the range of 0 to 60 atomic-%. However, Anderson teaches the particles comprise of lithium content in the range of 0 to 30 atomic-% or 0 to 350 atomic-% (see e.g., Anderson; page 7 paragraph 4, page 9 paragraph 4, page 11 paragraph 2), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0-60 atomic-% of lithium. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particle of Cho to comprise of lithium content in the range of 0 to 30 atomic-% or 0 to 350 atomic- % disclosed by Anderson such that the concentration of lithium matches the bulk irreversible capacity of the SiNx powder and it will not be necessary to provide cathode capacity corresponding to the irreversible capacity (see e.g., Anderson; page 10 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cho teaches the energy storage device according to claim 11. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy storage device comprises an electrolyte additive that enhances a first cycle lithiation of said SiNXOy particles, by providing a surface electrolyte interface (SEI) layer that facilitates the lithiation of SiNXOy particles. However, Anderson teaches the energy storage device comprises an electrolyte additive that enhances a first cycle lithiation of the particles by providing a surface of electrolyte interface (SEI) layer that facilitates the lithiation of SiNxOy, particles, such as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) or vinylene carbonate (VC) (see e.g., Anderson; page 13 paragraphs 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of Cho by providing fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) or vinylene carbonate (VC) in the electrolyte as disclosed by Anderson to make an SEI-layer aiding lithium insertion and to prevent cracking and degradation (see e.g., Anderson; page 13 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Cho teaches the energy storage device according to claim 13, wherein said electrolyte additive is at least one of the following: fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) or vinylene carbonate (VC) (see above regarding claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, modified Cho teaches the energy storage device according to claim 11. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy storage device comprises an electrolyte additive that enhances a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of said SiNxOy, by providing an additional source of lithium that is arranged to be incorporated into the SiNxOy particles during cycling. However, Anderson teaches the energy storage device comprises an electrolyte additive that enhances a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of said SiNxOy such as fluoroethylene carbonate or vinylene carbonate (see e.g., Anderson; page 13 paragraph 2), by providing an additional source of lithium, such as pre-lithiating with lithium trimethylsilane, lithium tert- butoxide, or lithium bis(trimethylsilyl)amide that is arranged to be incorporated into the SiNxOy particles during cycling (see e.g., Anderson; page 7 paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of Cho by providing an electrolyte with an electrolyte additive such as fluoroethylene carbonate or vinylene carbonate and pre-lithiating with lithium trimethylsilane, lithium tert-butoxide, or lithium bis(trimethylsilyl)amide during cycling as disclosed by Anderson to make an SEI-layer aiding lithium insertion, and to prevent cracking and degradation (see e.g., Anderson; page 13 paragraph 3), and to improve battery performance from reducing electrolyte consumption during initial battery cycles, and to reduce the need for time-consuming battery cycling for stabilization, and to easily form a coating (see e.g., Anderson; page 7 paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO-2019112107-A1) (see translation), and in further view of Fukuoka (JP-2002356314-A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cho teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein said powder of particles comprises aggregates of individual SiNXOy particles. However, Fukuoka discloses wherein said powder of particles comprises aggregates of individual SiNxOy particles, wherein "aggregate" relate to SiNxOy particles that themselves are comprised of a number of smaller primary SiNxOy particles bound together by chemical or mechanical means to form a whole according to the instant specification (see e.g., [0035], wherein the formation of a silicon oxynitride powder is provided with an intermediate material that is an aggregate of silicon oxynitride; although the intermediate aggregate of silicon oxynitride is pulverized to form a completed powder, the pulverization does not break apart all aggregates because the grinding process in itself is known to further form aggregates due to the mechanical motion compressing small particles together). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the particles of Cho to comprise of aggregates as disclosed by Fukuoka in order to improve energy density and cycle life (see e.g., Fukuoka; [0005]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO-2019112107-A1) (see translation), and in further view of He (CN-110190283-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 19, modified Cho teaches the method of claim 16. Cho does not explicitly disclose wherein the solvent is water. However, He teaches forming an electrode with a solvent such as water (see e.g., He; page 2 paragraph 5). He is further equivalent analogous art because He similarly teaches a ceramic powder wherein silicon may be used (see e.g., He; [0014]) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the electrode of Cho by including water as the solvent as disclosed by He. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further improve the quality of the negative electrode slurry (see e.g., He; [0016]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights