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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”, US 20180040880 A1) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh”, US 20190074516 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Andersen teaches an energy storage device (Andersen, Title, Abstract, [0052], e.g., lithium-ion battery) comprising:
a cathode (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], e.g., cathode);
an anode (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], e.g., anode) comprising:
a support structure (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0041], [0052], e.g., anode comprises a metal foil as a current collector; current collector); and
an electrode layer disposed on the support structure (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0041]-[0049], [0052], e.g., anode comprises a metal foil as a current collector; silicon-carbon composite anode; the Si—C composite material layer deposited on the metal foil current collector), the electrode layer comprising:
falls in the claimed range of 42.5-75% silicon (Andersen, [0026], [0031], [0057], [0071], [0082], e.g., 50-70 weight % of silicon particles);
5-30% graphite, which is close to the claimed range of 32.5-40% graphite; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., the amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
overlaps the claimed range of 5-15%carbon (Andersen, [0032], [0058], [0083], e.g., 12.5-17.5 weight % of carbon black (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); about 15 weight % of carbon black);
falls in the claimed range of 0-15% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (Andersen, [0029], [0034], [0035], [0060], e.g., about 7.5 weight % of CMC);
overlaps the claimed range of 0-5% styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (Andersen, [0029], [0034], [0035], [0091], e.g., 10-17.5 weight % of a combination of CMC and SBR as a binder; the mass ratio CMC/SBR is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8; the amount of binders CMC and SBR in the present Si—C composite anode is 7.5-30 weight %, for instance 10-17.5 weight %, or 12.5-15 weight %; the mass CMC:SBR ratio is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, for instance from 0.9:1 to 1:0.9. e.g. 1:1 (which includes 4 weight % of SBR, overlapping that of the claimed range 0-5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a separator disposed between the anode and cathode which is expected to prevent internal shorting of the energy storage device; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], [0004], e.g., separator; separator is provided between anode layer and cathode layer; (as shown in Figs. 1a-1b, a separator disposed between the anode and cathode and is expected to prevent internal shorting of the energy storage device; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112))); and
an electrolyte which is expected to be capable of allowing movement of ions between the anode and cathode; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], [0004], e.g., electrolyte (which is expected to be capable of allowing movement of ions between the anode and cathode; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); a liquid electrolyte material is dispersed within the porous spacer or separator, the composite anode layer and the composite cathode layer).
Andersen’s ranges overlap that of the claimed ranges; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen’s range closes to that of the claimed ranges; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen does not teach 5-20% poly(acrylic acid).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery including an electrode; the composition may include (A) an electrode active material, (B) a conductive material, and (C) a binder including a cellulose compound, styrene-butadiene rubber and lithium polyacrylic acid (Oh, Fig. 1, [0002]). The secondary battery including an anode active material of graphite, silicon or a graphite-silicon composite material (Oh, Fig. 1 [0021]). The lithium polyacrylic acid (LiPAA) may be contained in a range of about 0.001 to 10 wt % (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) based on the total weight of the electrode slurry (OH, Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 5-20% poly(acrylic acid), for the purpose of providing optimum adhesion improving effect and the silicon volume increase suppressing effect and/or lifespan of the battery (Oh, [0058]). Oh’s range overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Andersen teaches
a range overlaps the claimed 42.5% silicon (Andersen, [0026], [0031], [0057], [0071], [0082], e.g., 40-80 weight % of silicon particles (which overlaps that of the claimed 42.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a range closes to the claimed 32.5% graphite (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed 32.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a range overlaps the claimed 10% carbon (Andersen, [0028], [0058], [0083], e.g., amount of carbon black is 5-17.5 weight % of (which overlaps that of the claimed 10%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); about 15 weight % of carbon black);
a range closes to the claimed 2.5% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (Andersen, [0029], [0091], e.g., the amount of binders CMC and SBR in the present Si—C composite anode is 7.5-30 weight %; the mass CMC:SBR ratio is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, for instance from 0.9:1 to 1:0.9. e.g. 1:1 (which includes 3.75 weight % of CMC, closes to the claimed 2.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a range close to the claimed 2.5% styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (Andersen, [0029], [0091], e.g., the amount of binders CMC and SBR in the present Si—C composite anode is 7.5-30 weight %; the mass CMC:SBR ratio is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, for instance from 0.9:1 to 1:0.9. e.g. 1:1 (which includes 3.75 weight % of SBR, closes to the claimed 2.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Andersen teaches ranges overlap that of the claimed amount; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen teaches ranges close to that of the claimed amount; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen does not teach the 5-20% poly(acrylic acid) is 10% lithium-neutralized poly(acrylic acid) (PAL).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery including an electrode; the composition may include (A) an electrode active material, (B) a conductive material, and (C) a binder including a cellulose compound, styrene-butadiene rubber and lithium polyacrylic acid (Oh, Fig. 1, [0002]). The secondary battery including an anode active material of graphite, silicon or a graphite-silicon composite material (Oh, Fig. 1 [0021]). The lithium polyacrylic acid (LiPAA) may be contained in a range of about 0.001 to 10 wt % (which overlaps that of the claimed 10%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) based on the total weight of the electrode slurry (OH, Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the 5-20% poly(acrylic acid) is 10% lithium-neutralized poly(acrylic acid) (PAL), for the purpose of providing optimum adhesion improving effect and the silicon volume increase suppressing effect and/or lifespan of the battery (Oh, [0058]). Oh’s range close to that of the claimed amount; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the 42.5-75% silicon as disclosed in claim 1 and 11 above. Andersen teaches wherein the 42.5-75% silicon is structured as fine particles having an average size overlapping that of the claimed range of approximately 3 um or less; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0026], [0075], e.g., the silicon particles used for production of the present Si—C composite anode preferably have a D50 particle size between 1-10 um (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the 42.5-75% silicon as disclosed in claim 1 and 11 above. Andersen teaches wherein the 42.5-75% silicon is structured as fine particles having an average size close to that of the claimed range of approximately 100 nm or less; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0026], [0075], e.g., the silicon particles used for production of the present Si—C composite anode preferably have a D50 particle size between 1-10 um (which is close to that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Regarding claim 10, Andersen in view of Oh teaches an energy storage device substantially identical to that of claim 1 as disclosed above. Andersen in view of Oh is expected to have wherein a Coulombic efficiency of the energy storage device is approximately 90% or greater over approximately 25 charge and discharge cycles or more. The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. (See MPEP § 2112).
Claims 4-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”, US 20180040880 A1) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh”, US 20190074516 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerasopoulos et al. (“Gerasopoulos”, US 20200411906 A1) and Cao et al. (“Cao”, US 20220115706 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 18, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device as disclosed in claim 1 above. Andersen in view of Oh does not teach wherein the electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte comprising: poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) and polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) at a ratio of MPEGA/PEGDA 95/5 by weight; and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising:bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); andat least one of:ethylene carbonate (EC);dimethyl carbonate (DMC);diethyl carbonate (DEC);triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerasopoulos teaches a battery comprising a polymer electrolyte comprising 90 wt% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) and 10 wt% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), which is close to the claimed ratio of 95/5 by weight; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Gerasopoulos, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, [0082], [0169], e.g., battery; 90 wt % MPEGA-480, 10 wt % PEGDA-700 (which is close to the claimed ratio of 95/5 by weight; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Gerasopoulos does not teach lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]).
Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claims 4-5 and 18 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao.
Regarding claim 6, Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches the energy storage device of claim 5 as disclosed above. Andersen does not teach wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio of approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio overlapping the claimed approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively, for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]). Cao’s ranges overlap that of the claimed percentages; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claim 6 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao.
Regarding claim 19, Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches the energy storage device of claim 4 as disclosed above. Gerasopoulos does not teach wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio of approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio overlapping the claimed approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively, for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]). Cao’s ranges overlap that of the claimed percentages; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claim 19 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”, US 20180040880 A1) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh”, US 20190074516 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (“Sakamoto”, US 20190326601 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the 42.5-75% silicon and 32.5-40% graphite as disclosed in claims 1 and 11 above. Andersen in view of Oh does not teach wherein an active loading rate corresponding to the 42.5-75% silicon and 32.5-40% graphite is approximately 1-5 mg/cm2.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sakamoto teaches a negative electrode of a lithium ion battery (Sakamoto, Abstract) comprising Si—C granulated body (Si:artificial graphite) as the active material, a sufficient discharge capacity is obtained when the skeleton density is 0.03 to 3.45 mg/cm2 (which is being interpreted as active loading rate) (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) (Sakamoto, [0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an active loading rate corresponding to the 42.5-75% silicon and 32.5-40% graphite is approximately 1-5 mg/cm2, for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient discharge capacity (Sakamoto, [0225]). Sakamoto’s range overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Andersen in view of Oh and Sakamoto teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claims 7 and 14 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Andersen in view of Oh and Sakamoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[e]vidence of these unexpected results are shown in, e.g., Table 6A and 6B ‘Effect of Added Graphite.’ Here, it is shown that the ratio of silicon to graphite changes the discharge capacity, charge capacity, and overall columbic efficiency of the battery. These unexpected results are described in, e.g., [0043]: ‘In some aspects, the data in Tables 6A and 6B shows that the added graphite increased the 1st cycle CE from about 28.9% to greater than 80%.’ These results show that the inventors experimented enough to determine how to arrive at this unexpectedly improved performance by controlling the ratio of silicon to graphite. The Office has not pointed to any teaching or suggestion in the applied references disclosing modifying the amount of graphite with respect to silicon in electrode layers to improve columbic efficiency. As such, the teaching of 32.5% graphite to yield improved columbic efficiency represents an unexpected result due to the criticality of graphite concentration in such electrodes. Anderson also fails to disclose the teaching of 32.5-40% graphite. In fact, embodiments disclosed in Anderson teach graphite percentages far below the 30 weight % upper limit discussed in Andersen, [0028]. See Andersen, [0033], [0038] (disclosing 8.5-20 weight % and 12.5-17.5 weight % as ‘preferred embodiment[s]’ of the anode), [0059] (disclosing about 10 weight % of graphite as an ‘especially preferred’ embodiment). Similarly, no disclosure in Oh teaches or suggests 32.5-40% graphite, as recited in claims 1 and 11. Neither Andersen nor Oh present any motivation to get within the claimed 32.5-40% graphite range. And the Office has not presented any teaching that a POSA would have viewed the ratio of silicon to graphite as a result effective variable. The Office errs in viewing the concentration of graphite in a vacuum when applying a § 103 rejection. By carefully maintaining graphite and silicon ratios as taught by the instant claims, unexpectedly superior results are obtained, as discussed above. However, prior to the disclosure of the instant specification, a POSA would not have been motivated to optimize graphite/silicon ratios outside of the range taught by Andersen.
The claimed silicon/graphite concentrations, e.g., as described in Tables 6A-6B, demonstrate the criticality of these ranges, and rebutting any case of obviousness that the Office sets out. See MPEP 2144.05. Any alleged prima facie case put forth by the Office is also incorrect because of the broad ranges allegedly disclosed by the art. Specifically, Andersen teaches 5-30% graphite and 40- 80% silicon - a wide range encompassing almost all potential graphite/silicon combinations. Such broad disclosures ‘weigh against maintaining an obviousness rejection.’ See MPEP 2144.05.III.D. Because of the unexpected results exhibited by compositions outside the graphite/silicon ratio taught by the applied references, absent additional evidence supplied by the Office, the Office fails to show that the upper limit of 30% is sufficiently close to the claimed 32.5% value such that a skilled artisan would have expected these compositions to have the same properties. … The Office Action alleges that Andersen's disclosure of the range 5-30 weight % graphite ‘is close to that of the claimed 32.5%.’ Office Action, ¶28. However, the Office fails to show that the upper limit of 30 % is sufficiently close to the claimed 32.5% value such that a skilled artisan would have expected these compositions to have the same properties.” (Remarks, Pages 9-10).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Andersen teaches a range falling in the claimed range of 42.5-75% silicon (Andersen, [0026], [0031], [0057], [0071], [0082], e.g., 50-70 weight % of silicon particles); and
5-30% graphite, which is close to the claimed range of 32.5-40% graphite; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., the amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Andersen teaches a range closes to the claimed 32.5% graphite (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed 32.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Tables 6A and 6B of Applicant’s Specification are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. (See MPEP 716.02(d)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights