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 Amendment
The Amendment filed February 5th 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. The rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Zhang et al. CN 110429335 A. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 recites the amended range for the average length of a carbon nanotube of 1 to 5 µm. This narrowed range does not have support in the instant specification, thus this amended range is considered to be new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the average length of the carbon nanotube is 1µm to 5µm”, however previously in Claim 1, it is recited “an average length of the carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 50 µm and less than 150 µm”. Claim 2 is thus unclear and indefinite as the recited limitation of Claim 2 cannot be met because of the requirements of the previous Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner further notes that since the limitations recited in Claim 2 directly contradict the requirement of Claim 1, the examiner cannot reasonably interpret Claim 2 and therefore Claim 2 cannot be examined on the merits.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “wherein the average length of the carbon nanotube is 1µm to 5µm”, however previously in Claim 1, it is recited “an average length of the carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 50 µm and less than 150 µm”. Claim 2 contradicts previously recited Claim 1, from which Claim 2 depends, as Claim 2 recites a range that is outside of the previous range of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 2 fails to limit the subject matter of Claim 1 and does not include all limitations of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan et al. US 2016/0336615 A1, and further in view of Aria et al. US 2015/0010788 A1 and Zhang et al. CN 110429335 A. Citations to Zhang are mapped to the English machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Thillaiyan discloses a lithium secondary battery (a lithium-ion battery [0013]) comprising
a positive electrode (a cathode) with a positive electrode active material layer (cathode active material) [0013] on a positive electrode current collector (the cathode includes embedded current collector [0075])
Thillaiyan discloses that the positive active material layer (cathode active material) comprises a lithium composite oxide [0075], a binder [0078], and a solid conductive additive (conducting material) [0079] that consists of carbon nanotubes (“In preferred embodiments, the conducting material is a carbon nanotube.”) [0079]
Thillaiyan discloses that the positive electrode (cathode) includes the carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.5wt%-20wt% [0080] based on the total weight of the positive active material layer. In regards to the amount of carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Thillaiyan because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
a negative electrode (anode) with a negative active material (an anode active material) [0013]
an electrolyte solution (a non-aqueous electrolyte that is a fluid) [0013]
Thillaiyan discloses that the electrolyte further discloses a non-aqueous organic solvent [0055-0056], a lithium salt [0055-0056], and an additive [0060].
Thillaiyan discloses that the additive (fire retardant additive [0060]) is triphenyl phosphate [0061], which meets the limitations set forth in Claim 1 Chemical Formula 1 of the instant application.
Thillaiyan fails to specifically disclose that the average length of the carbon nanotubes is greater than or equal to 50 µm and less than 150 µm.
Aria discloses electrochemical cells using carbon nanotubes for positive electrodes [0010]. Aria further discloses more specifically that the carbon nanotubes have an average length of 10µm to 5mm [0017]. In regards to the average length of carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Aria because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Aria discloses that carbon nanotubes in this configuration are beneficial for mechanical, electronic, and chemical properties of positive electrodes [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested carbon nanotube length of Aria in the positive electrode active material of Thillaiyan to achieve a battery with improve mechanical, electronic, and chemical properties.
Modified Thillaiyan discloses that the phosphate-based additive (triphenyl phosphate fire retardant) is included in an amount of 2-25% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [0062], which overlaps the upper bound of the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5wt% and less than or equal to 2wt%.
Additionally, in a similar disclosure, Zhang discloses an electrolyte for an electrochemical device [Page 1 Lines 14-15] such as a battery further comprising a negative electrode and a positive electrode [Page 8 Lines 52-55], similar to Thillaiyan. Zhang discloses an additive for the electrolyte comprising a phosphate compound such as triphenyl phosphate [Page 6 Lines 56-60], similar to that of Thillaiyan. Zhang discloses that the phosphate compound is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [Page 7 Lines 2-4], which overlaps with the entire claimed range.
Zhang discloses that a battery comprising an electrolyte such as this has improved energy density [Page 1 Lines 19-26] as well as improved battery capacity retention rate [Page 3 Lines 9-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested amount of phosphate-based compound as suggested by Zhang in the electrolyte of modified Thillaiyan to obtain 0.5-10% by weight of phosphate-based compound in the electrolyte, to achieve a battery with improved energy density and improved battery capacity retention rate.
Regarding Claim 3, Thillaiyan discloses that the positive electrode (cathode) includes the carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.5wt%-20wt% [0080] based on the total weight of the positive active material layer. In regards to the amount of carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Thillaiyan because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Thillaiyan discloses that the phosphate compound (triphenyl phosphate [0061]) is included in the electrolyte solution in an amount of 0.5-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [Zhang Page 7 Lines 2-4], for example 1% [Zhang Page 7 Line3]. In regards to the amount of phosphate compound in the electrolyte, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Thillaiyan because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 5, Thillaiyan discloses that the phosphate compound is triphenyl phosphate [0061].
Regarding Claim 6, Thillaiyan discloses that the lithium composite oxide is one of LiaNixCoyMnzO2 (NCM), LiaNixCoyAlzO2 (NCA), LiaNixMnzO2 (NMO), LiaFexPyO4 (LFP), or LiMn2O4 [0075]. In one embodiment, Thillaiyan specifically discloses that the cathode is LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn-0.2O2 [0114], which meets the limitations set forth in Claim 6 wherein M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, M3 is Mn, a = 1.0, y1 = 0.3, z1 = 0.2, and y1+z1 = 0.5. Thus, Thillaiyan discloses that the positive active material is at least one type of lithium composite oxide meeting the limitations set forth by Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Thillaiyan discloses that the lithium composite oxide is LiaNixCoyAlzO2 (NCA) [0075]. Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) has the typical chemical formula of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, which meets the limitations set forth in Claim 7 wherein the lithium composite oxide has the formula of Chemical Formula 2-1, x2 = 1.0, y2 = 0.8, and z2 = 0.15. Thus, Thillaiyan discloses that the positive active material is at least one type of lithium composite oxide meeting the limitations set forth by Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Thillaiyan discloses that the negative active material (anode active material) comprises a Si-C composite (silicon-graphite composite, silicon-graphene composite, silicon-carbon composite) [0013, 0072], which comprise silicon based active material combined with a carbon based active material. Thus Thillaiyan discloses that the Si-C composite includes a Si-based active material and a carbon-based active material.
Regarding Claims 9 & 10, Thillaiyan discloses that the negative active material (anode active material) comprises graphite, which is a crystalline carbon, in addition to the silicon-carbon composite (the anode may comprise at least one material from the group graphite and silicon-carbon composites) [0013, 0072].
Regarding Claim 13, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Thillaiyan discloses that the solid conductive additive (conducting material) is preferably only carbon nanotubes [0079], thus is free of carbon black, graphite, acetylene black, and metal fibers.
Claims 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan, Aria, and Zhang as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Li et al. US 2021/0399290 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Thillaiyan is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1 & 10. However, modified Thillaiyan fails to disclose that the Si-C composite includes a shell surround the surface of the composite wherein the shell includes amorphous carbon.
Li discloses a silicon-based composite negative electrode material [Abstract] that includes a core comprising a silicon-carbon composite material [0007-0008] and further includes a shell cover that covers the core [0007] wherein the shell comprises amorphous carbon [0009].
Li discloses that a negative electrode material with this configuration improves the strength and toughness of the layers within the electrode material, restricts the volume expansion of the Si-C composite core, and enables a stable interface with the electrolyte, which improves cycle stability and rate performance of the battery [00040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Thillaiyan to further include the amorphous carbon shell as suggested by Li to achieve a battery with improved cycle stability and rate performance.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Thillaiyan discloses, with the modification of Li, that the amorphous carbon comprises soft carbon or hard carbon [0019].
Claims 1, 3-10 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan et al. US 2016/0336615 A1, and further in view of Koseki et al. WO 2019/168035 A1, Aria et al. US 2015/0010788 A1, and Zhang et al. CN 110429335 A. Citations to Koseki are mapped to the provided machine translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Thillaiyan discloses a lithium secondary battery (a lithium-ion battery [0013]) comprising
a positive electrode (a cathode) with a positive electrode active material layer (cathode active material) [0013] on a positive electrode current collector (the cathode includes embedded current collector [0075])
Thillaiyan discloses that the positive active material layer (cathode active material) comprises a lithium composite oxide [0075], a binder [0078], and a solid conductive additive (conducting material) [0079] that consists of carbon nanotubes (“In preferred embodiments, the conducting material is a carbon nanotube.”) [0079]
Thillaiyan discloses that the positive electrode (cathode) includes the carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.5wt%-20wt% [0080] based on the total weight of the positive active material layer. In regards to the amount of carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Thillaiyan because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
a negative electrode (anode) with a negative active material (an anode active material) [0013]
an electrolyte solution (a non-aqueous electrolyte that is a fluid) [0013]
Thillaiyan discloses that the electrolyte further discloses a non-aqueous organic solvent [0055-0056], a lithium salt [0055-0056], and an additive [0060].
Thillaiyan discloses that the additive (fire retardant additive [0060]) is triphenyl phosphate [0061], which meets the limitations set forth in Claim 1 Chemical Formula 1 of the instant application.
Thillaiyan discloses that the conducting material is carbon nanotubes [0079], however discloses that the positive active material layer additionally comprises another conductive material (Examples comprising both CNT and conductive carbon) [0121], see also Figures 11 & 12. Thillaiyan discloses that even though all the samples were prepared with both CNT and conductive carbon as the conducting material, samples with lower conductive carbon concentration exhibited higher electron conductivity [0122].
Koseki discloses a positive electrode comprising a lithium composite oxide [Page 2 Lines 16-24], a binder [Page 3 Line 24], and a conductive additive that consists of carbon nanotubes [Page 2 Lines 16-18, Page 3 Line 18], similar to that of Thillaiyan. Koseki specifically discloses that the conductive material consists of carbon nanotubes [Page 3 Line 18], and that the content of the carbon nanotubes that are included in the conductive assistant is preferably 100% [Page 3 Lines 21-22].
Koseki discloses that a positive electrode with this composition, specifically using the carbon nanotubes as the conductive additive, exhibits improved output characteristics and increased density while reducing the resistance [Page 2 Lines 46-48]. Koseki discloses that this is due to the carbon nanotubes being able to easily fill gaps between the lithium composite oxide particles to enhance conduction [Page 2 Lines 48-51].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select an embodiment of Thillaiyan wherein only carbon nanotubes are used as the solid conductive additive as supported by Koseki to achieve a positive electrode with improved output characteristics, increased density, and reduced resistance.
Modified Thillaiyan fails to specifically disclose that the average length of the carbon nanotubes is greater than or equal to 50 µm and less than 150 µm.
Aria discloses electrochemical cells using carbon nanotubes for positive electrodes [0010]. Aria further discloses more specifically that the carbon nanotubes have an average length of 10µm to 5mm [0017]. In regards to the average length of carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Aria because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Aria discloses that carbon nanotubes in this configuration are beneficial for mechanical, electronic, and chemical properties of positive electrodes [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested carbon nanotube length of Aria in the positive electrode active material of modified Thillaiyan to achieve a battery with improve mechanical, electronic, and chemical properties.
Modified Thillaiyan discloses that the phosphate-based additive (triphenyl phosphate fire retardant) is included in an amount of 2-25% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [0062], which overlaps the upper bound of the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5wt% and less than or equal to 2wt%.
Additionally, in a similar disclosure, Zhang discloses an electrolyte for an electrochemical device [Page 1 Lines 14-15] such as a battery further comprising a negative electrode and a positive electrode [Page 8 Lines 52-55], similar to Thillaiyan. Zhang discloses an additive for the electrolyte comprising a phosphate compound such as triphenyl phosphate [Page 6 Lines 56-60], similar to that of Thillaiyan. Zhang discloses that the phosphate compound is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [Page 7 Lines 2-4], which overlaps with the entire claimed range.
Zhang discloses that a battery comprising an electrolyte such as this has improved energy density [Page 1 Lines 19-26] as well as improved battery capacity retention rate [Page 3 Lines 9-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested amount of phosphate-based compound as suggested by Zhang in the electrolyte of modified Thillaiyan to obtain 0.5-10% by weight of phosphate-based compound in the electrolyte, to achieve a battery with improved energy density and improved battery capacity retention rate.
Regarding Claim 3, Thillaiyan discloses that the positive electrode (cathode) includes the carbon nanotubes in an amount of 0.5wt%-20wt% [0080] based on the total weight of the positive active material layer. In regards to the amount of carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Thillaiyan because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Thillaiyan discloses that the phosphate compound (triphenyl phosphate [0061]) is included in the electrolyte solution in an amount of 0.5-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [Zhang Page 7 Lines 2-4], for example 1% [Zhang Page 7 Line3]. In regards to the amount of phosphate compound in the electrolyte, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by modified Thillaiyan because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 5, Thillaiyan discloses that the phosphate compound is triphenyl phosphate [0061].
Regarding Claim 6, Thillaiyan discloses that the lithium composite oxide is one of LiaNixCoyMnzO2 (NCM), LiaNixCoyAlzO2 (NCA), LiaNixMnzO2 (NMO), LiaFexPyO4 (LFP), or LiMn2O4 [0075]. In one embodiment, Thillaiyan specifically discloses that the cathode is LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn-0.2O2 [0114], which meets the limitations set forth in Claim 6 wherein M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, M3 is Mn, a = 1.0, y1 = 0.3, z1 = 0.2, and y1+z1 = 0.5. Thus, Thillaiyan discloses that the positive active material is at least one type of lithium composite oxide meeting the limitations set forth by Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Thillaiyan discloses that the lithium composite oxide is LiaNixCoyAlzO2 (NCA) [0075]. Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) has the typical chemical formula of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, which meets the limitations set forth in Claim 7 wherein the lithium composite oxide has the formula of Chemical Formula 2-1, x2 = 1.0, y2 = 0.8, and z2 = 0.15. Thus, Thillaiyan discloses that the positive active material is at least one type of lithium composite oxide meeting the limitations set forth by Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Thillaiyan discloses that the negative active material (anode active material) comprises a Si-C composite (silicon-graphite composite, silicon-graphene composite, silicon-carbon composite) [0013, 0072], which comprise silicon based active material combined with a carbon based active material. Thus Thillaiyan discloses that the Si-C composite includes a Si-based active material and a carbon-based active material.
Regarding Claims 9 & 10, Thillaiyan discloses that the negative active material (anode active material) comprises graphite, which is a crystalline carbon, in addition to the silicon-carbon composite (the anode may comprise at least one material from the group graphite and silicon-carbon composites) [0013, 0072].
Regarding Claim 13, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Thillaiyan discloses that the solid conductive additive is only carbon nanotubes, as modified by the suggestion of Koseki, thus is free of carbon black, graphite, acetylene black, and metal fibers.
Claims 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan, Koseki, Aria, and Zhang as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Li et al. US 2021/0399290 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Thillaiyan is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1 & 10. However, modified Thillaiyan fails to disclose that the Si-C composite includes a shell surround the surface of the composite wherein the shell includes amorphous carbon.
Li discloses a silicon-based composite negative electrode material [Abstract] that includes a core comprising a silicon-carbon composite material [0007-0008] and further includes a shell cover that covers the core [0007] wherein the shell comprises amorphous carbon [0009].
Li discloses that a negative electrode material with this configuration improves the strength and toughness of the layers within the electrode material, restricts the volume expansion of the Si-C composite core, and enables a stable interface with the electrolyte, which improves cycle stability and rate performance of the battery [00040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Thillaiyan to further include the amorphous carbon shell as suggested by Li to achieve a battery with improved cycle stability and rate performance.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Thillaiyan discloses, with the modification of Li, that the amorphous carbon comprises soft carbon or hard carbon [0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. Examiner respectfully points out that, as stated in the rejection above, Thillaiyan in combination with Aria and newly presented Zhang does disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. More specifically, Thillaiyan discloses that the carbon nanotube is included in an amount of 0.5wt%-20wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material layer, which overlaps with the amended claimed range. Modified Thillaiyan, as modified by Aria, discloses that the average length of the carbon nanotube is 10µm-5mm, which overlaps with the amended claimed range. Further, modified Thillaiyan, as modified by Zhang, discloses that the phosphate-based compound is included in an amount of 0.5-10wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte, which overlaps with the amended claimed range. Examiner points out that all values in the ranges are obvious including the overlapping values, therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant additionally argues that the claimed invention of claim 1 yields unexpected and superior performance relative to a similar battery that is outside the scope of the amended claims. Firstly, Examiner respectfully points out that as mentioned above and as stated in the rejection above, modified Thillaiyan discloses the claimed invention, and thus the battery of modified Thillaiyan would be expected to yield the same unexpected and superior performance as the claimed invention. Secondly, Examiner points out that the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope to the examples and therefore the examples cannot be relied upon to show that the claimed invention presents the unexpected and superior performance of the examples. At a minimum, the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope because the amount of the electrolyte solution varies compared to the comparative examples and therefore could be contributing to the unexpected and superior performance. The comparative examples all have a smaller amount of electrolyte solution as compared to the experimental examples, which is not a claimed feature, and therefore the unexpected and superior results yielded from the experimental examples could have been a result of the amount of the electrolyte solution. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726