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 the Claims
Claims 11-22, 24, 27, and 29 are pending and rejected. Claim 29 is newly added. Claims 11 and 21 are amended. Claims 23, 25, 26, and 28 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 12, 14-22, 24, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener, WO 2018/082880 A1 in view of Rickborn, US 4,686,116, and Yang, US 2014/0147751 A1, and for claims 15 and 16, as evidenced by IGTPAN, “Properties of Polyacrylonitrile”, 2019.
The following citations for Wegener, WO 2018/082880 A1 are in reference to Wegener, US 2019/0305366 A1 which is considered to be the English translation of Wegener, WO 2018/082880 A1 because it is the US national stage of the PCT application.
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Wegener teaches a process for producing non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles (abstract). They teach that the silicon particles are preferably non-aggregated (0042). They teach that the silicon particles may consist of elemental silicon, where elemental silicon is understood to mean polysilicon (0046 and 0047). They teach that the silicon particles are produced by a grinding process (0053). Therefore, they provide non-aggregated silicon particles based on grounded polysilicon (since the elemental silicon is polysilicon and the silicon particles are produced by grinding). They teach forming the carbon-coated silicon particles by CVD methods (chemical vapor deposition, chemical gas phase deposition) in which silicon particles are coated with carbon using one or more carbon precursors, where the particles are agitated during the performance of the CVD method and the CVD method is conducted in an atmosphere containing carbon precursors (0012 and 0014). They teach that the carbon precursors include hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, hexane, ethylene, acetylene, aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, nitrobenzene, pyridine, etc. (0074). They teach that the silicon particles are heated in an atmosphere, especially a gas stream, containing one or more generally gaseous carbon precursors (0076). They teach that under the process conditions typical of the CVD method, the carbon precursors are in the gaseous state and break down at the hot surface of the silicon particles with deposition of carbon (0076). They teach that the carbon-coated silicon particles are suitable as silicon-based active materials for anode active materials for lithium-ion batteries (0091). They teach providing lithium-ion batteries comprising an anode material that contains the carbon-coated silicon particles (0093, 0095, 0101, and 0102). Therefore, they teach producing non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles for use in an anode lithium-ion battery that includes forming gaseous carbon precursors that are carbonized in the presence of non-aggregated silicon particles based on grounded polysilicon by CVD so as to produce non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles, where the particles are incorporated within an anode of a lithium-ion battery as required by claim 29.
They teach that the non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles have average particle diameters d50 of 1 to 15 microns and contain less than or equal to 10% by weight of carbon and greater than or equal to 90% by weight of silicon based on the total weight of the carbon-coated silicon particles (0011).
Wegener also teaches using meltable carbon precursors such as polyacrylonitrile (0056). They teach mixing the silicon particles with a meltable carbon precursor, heating until the precursor has melted, and then carbonizing the molten precursor (0013).
They do not teach providing a mixture of silicon particles and polyacrylonitrile.
Rickborn teaches a method of chemically vapor depositing a substantially uniform carbonaceous film onto each of a plurality of small refractory particles (abstract). They teach that uncoated small refractory particles are intimately intermixed with an organic precursor in liquid or solid form, the intermixing being at a temperature below the sublimation, boiling or decomposition temperature of the precursor (abstract). They teach that the resulting intimate intermixture is subjected to a temperature of 700°C to 1200°C in a deposition zone (abstract). They teach that the organic precursor, under the residence time and temperature conditions in the deposition zone is substantially completely converted by sublimation, boiling and/or decomposition to one or more vaporous species (abstract). They teach that particles produced by the method are substantially uniformly coated over their entire exposed surfaces and the amount of coating can be closely controlled thereby closely controlling the resulting electrical properties of the coated particles (abstract). They teach that the particles include SiO2 and are spherical with a diameter of no more than about 1 millimeter (Col. 3, lines 32-53). They teach mixing silica spheres with powdered polyacrylonitrile and placing it in a quartz reactor (Col. 7, lines 59-68). They teach that the reactor is purged and placed under a nitrogen atmosphere and then the reactor was heated to 800°C over 28 minutes, kept at 800°C for 30 minutes, and then allowed to cool to provide carbon-coated particles (Col. 7, lines 59-68). They teach that CVD is superior over pyrolysis of a non-volatile organic film on a surface (Col. 1, lines 21-35).
Yang teaches a silicon-carbon composite anode material for lithium-ion batteries and a preparation method thereof (abstract). They teach that the material consists of a porous silicon substrate and a carbon coating layer (abstract). They teach that the silicon is in the form of particles (0009). They teach forming the carbon coating by placing the substrate in a high temperature furnace and carrying a gaseous or liquid carbon source in to the furnace to dissociate the carbon source and deposit carbon (0015). Alternatively, they teach that the porous silicon substrate and a solid carbon source are dispersed in a solvent, homogeneously stirred, and then the solvent is evaporated (0016). They teach that the material is transferred into a high temperature furnace where the temperature is raised to 600°C to 1100°C in an atmosphere of a protective gas so that the solid carbon source disassociates to form a carbon coating layer on the surface of the porous silicon substrate (0016). They teach that the gaseous carbon source is selected from acetylene, methane, ethane, etc., the liquid source is selected from benzene, toluene, etc., and the solid carbon source is selected from polyacrylonitrile, sucrose, and glucose, etc. (0018-0020). Therefore, they teach using polyacrylonitrile as a carbon source for coating silicon particles in battery applications, where PAN is mixed with silicon particles, dried, and the mixture is heated so that the polyacrylonitrile dissociates to form the carbon coating, such that the polyacrylonitrile is understood to dissociate into a gas to provide the carbon coating by CVD as in the process describe by Rickborn.
From the teachings of Rickborn and Yang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Wegener to have used polyacrylonitrile as a solid carbon source in the CVD process by mixing powdered PAN with the silicon particles in the absence of solvent to provide a dry mixture and heating to thermally decompose or dissociated the PAN present in solid form in the dry mixture to form gaseous carbon precursors that are carbonized in the presence of the silicon particles by CVD because Rickborn teaches that a substantially uniform carbon coating can be applied onto silicon-containing particles in the micron-range by CVD using solid precursors such as powdered polyacrylonitrile that is mixed with the particles so as to provide a dry mixture and heated to cause thermal decomposition, sublimation, or boiling of the precursor, where the CVD process provides improvements over pyrolysis of an organic coating, Yang teaches that it is desirable to coat silicon particles by PAN as a solid source using CVD for battery applications, and because Wegener indicates that PAN is a desirable carbon source and that the Si particles can be coated by CVD, such that the process will be expected to provide PAN as a desirable solid carbon source for forming the carbon coating onto the silicon particles by CVD to provide an improved carbon film compared to carbonizing an organic coating where the process of dry mixing will improve the efficiency of the process by negating a need for dissolving the material.
Therefore, in the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang, the non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles will be formed by a providing a dry mixture of non-aggregated silicon particles based on elemental silicon and PAN present in solid form, thermally decomposing the PAN present in solid form in the dry mixture to form gaseous carbon precursors, where the gaseous carbon precursors are carbonized in the presence of the silicon particles by CVD such that the PAN will be thermally decomposed on the surface of the silicon particles by CVD in the process of forming gaseous carbon precursors that are carbonized to form the carbon coating on the surface of the silicon particles so that the silicon particles are coated with carbon to provide the non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles, and the carbon-coated silicon particles have an average particles diameter within the claimed range and a weight of carbon and silicon within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
As to the CVD process not containing any temperature holding level below the carbonization temperature, Wegener teaches performing CVD at preferably 600-1400°C (0084), where there is no indication that a lower temperature level is needed during the process.
Rickborn teaches heating the reactor to 800°C over 28 minutes and keeping it at 800°C for 30 minutes (Col. 7, lines 59-68).
Yang teaches increasing the temperature of the furnace to 600-1100°C to cause disassociation of the solid carbon source to form the carbon coating layer (0016). They teach that if the temperature is below 600°C, carbonization is incomplete or the conductivity of carbon is not high (0022).
From the teachings of Wegener, Rickborn, and Yang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the temperature in the CVD process so that it does not contain any temperature holding level below the carbonization temperature because Wegener does not indicate that a lower holding temperature is needed, Rickborn provides an example where the reactor is heated to the desired temperature without holding at a temperature below the carbonization temperature, and Yang also teaches heating to carbonize the carbon source, where it is not desired to go below a specific temperature in the carbonization temperature range such that it will be expected to provide a suitable temperature range for the CVD process to provide the carbon layer as desired while also efficiently heating to the desired temperature.
Regarding claim 12, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Rickborn further teaches mixing silica spheres with powdered polyacrylonitrile (Col. 7, lines 59-68). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mixed the silicon particles and the polyacrylonitrile as separate particles in the dry process because Rickborn teaches mixing particles with a powdered PAN such that it will be expected to provide a suitable mixture for the CVD process.
Regarding claim 14, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Rickborn further teaches forming the carbon coating with PAN by heating to 800°C (Col. 7, lines 59-68).
Yang teaches heating to a temperature of 600 to 1100°C (0016), where they teach using 900°C for PAN (0066).
From the teachings of Rickborn and Yang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated the mixture to a temperature of 800°C, 900°C or to have optimized within a range of 600-1100°C because Rickborn and Yang teach that such temperatures are suitable for forming a carbon coating from PAN and Yang teaches that such a range can be used for carbonizing an organic precursor, where the precursor incudes PAN, such that it will be expected to provide the gaseous carbon precursor from PAN as desired. Therefore, the step of thermally decomposing PAN will be conducted at a temperature within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Alternatively, according to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature for the thermal decomposition of PAN to be within the claimed range by routine experimentation so as to provide the gaseous carbon precursor as desired in forming the carbon coating.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Wegener teaches that room temperature is 23°C (0118). They teach transferring silicon powder at room temperature into the CVD reactor and then the reactor is heated with a heating rate of 20 K/min (0201).
Rickborn teaches heating the reactor to 800°C over 28 minutes and keeping it at that temperature for 30 minutes (Col. 7, lines 59-68).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the materials of Rickborn in the reactor at room temperature or about 23°C and then to have heated to 800°C over 28 minutes because there is no indication in Rickborn that the reactor is heated before placing the material into the reactor and because Wegener teaches placing material in a CVD reactor at room temperature, where room temperature is 23°C such that it will be expected to provide a suitable temperature for loading the samples. Therefore, the reactor will be heated at a rate of about 27.8°C/min.
They do not teach that the PAN is not melted or specifically at what temperature the heating is started.
As evidenced by IGTPAN, PAN degrades before melting and its melting is only observed above 300°C if the heating rate is 50°/min or more (understood to be 50°C because the other temperatures are in °C, pg. 1). Therefore, since Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang as evidenced by IGTPAN suggest heating at a rate of about 27.8°C/min, the PAN in the mixture is expected to not melt because the heating rate is below the rate at which melting is observed for PAN so as to provide an amount of melted PAN within the range of claim 15. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Alternatively, since the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang as evidenced by IGTPAN is directed at forming the carbon layer by CVD, i.e., chemical vapor deposition, and they suggest using PAN as a solid precursor as opposed to a liquid, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the heating of the PAN/Si mixture so that no PAN is melted during the thermal decomposition and carbonization steps because the carbon coating is desired to be formed by a vapor deposition process using a solid precursor such that it will be expected to result in vapor from the solid as opposed to vapor from a melt or liquid.
Regarding claim 17, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Wegener further teaches that the carbon-coated silicon particles have a degree of aggregation of preferably less than or equal to 40%, more preferably less than or equal to 30% as determined by sieve analysis (0021). Since the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang provides the carbon coating by CVD as taught by Wegener with the substitution of a solid precursor, the resulting particles are also expected to have a degree of aggregation as described by Wegener so as to be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Further, since Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang provide the carbon-coated silicon particles using the process of claim 1, the resulting particles are also expected to have the claimed degree of aggregation. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 18, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Wegener further teaches that the difference between the volume-weighted particle size distribution d50 of the carbon-coated silicon particles and the volume-weighted particle size distribution d50 of the silicon particles used as reactant for production of the carbon-coated silicon particles is preferably less than or equal to 5 microns, more preferably less than or equal to 3 microns (0022). Since the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang provides the carbon coating by CVD as taught by Wegener with the substitution of a solid precursor, the resulting particles are also expected to have a volume-weighed particle size distribution difference as described by Wegener so as to be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Further, since Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang provide the carbon-coated silicon particles using the process of claim 1, the resulting particles are also expected to have the claimed volume-weighted particle size distribution difference. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 19, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11, where they suggest heating at a temperature within the range of instant claim 14. Therefore, since they heat the mixture using the claimed process within the claimed temperature range, the thermal decomposition products are also expected to be those claimed in claim 19. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 20, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Wegener further teaches that the carbon-coated silicon particles may contain one or more additives such as graphite, conductive black, etc., but that preferably no conductive additives are present (0040). Therefore, when forming the dry mixture, no conductive additives will be added because Wegener teaches that there are preferably no conductive additives present.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above for claim 11, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest forming the carbon-coated silicon particles using the process of claims 11 and 21 so as to provide non-aggregated carbon-coated silicon particles, where the silicon particles are based on grounded polysilicon.
Wegener further teaches that the carbon-coated silicon particles are used as silicon-based active material for anode active materials for lithium-ion batteries (0091). They teach that the lithium-ion batteries comprise a cathode, an anode, a separator and an electrolyte, characterized in that the anode is based on the aforementioned anode material of the invention (0095). Therefore, in the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang, a lithium-ion battery will be produced that comprises a cathode, an anode, a separator, and an electrolyte, where the carbon-coated silicon particles are formed by the method of claim 21, meet the claimed ranges, and are an anode active material for the lithium-ion battery. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Regarding claim 22, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 21. Wegener further teaches using lithium hexafluorophosphate as an electrolyte (0190), so as to provide an inorganic salt comprising an alkali metal salt of a phosphate and fluoride.
Regarding claims 24 and 27, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claims 11 and 21. Wegener further teaches that the carbon-coated silicon particles typically have BET surface areas of preferably 0.1 to 10 m2/g, more preferably 0.3 to 8 m2/g, and most preferably 0.5 to 5 m2/g (0029). They teach that the carbon-coated silicon particles preferably contain 1-4% by weight of carbon, where the percentages are based on the total weight of the carbon-coated silicon particles (0038). They teach that the composition of the coated particles include 2.88% by weight carbon (0161), where the percentage is understood to be based on the total weight of the non-aggregated carbon-coated particles because the example provides the weight percent of Si, C, H, O, and N for the particles. Therefore, the BET surface area is within the claimed range and the weight percentage of carbon overlaps or is within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Holt, US 2019/0355980 A1 (provided on the IDS of 11/14/2023) and.
Regarding claim 13, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 11. Rickborn teaches mixing 7.92 g of silica spheres with 0.40 grams of PAN (Col. 7, lines 59-68), to provide about 4.8% by weight of PAN in the mixture.
They do not teach including PAN within the claimed range when using silicon particles.
Holt teaches spherical porous secondary silicon-based particles comprising a carbon coating (abstract). They teach coating the particles with carbon through a gas phase decomposition of hydrocarbons, ranging from 550-2000°C, in an inert atmosphere (0042). They teach that solid precursor can be used to form adherent carbon coatings through solid mixing of carbon-based precursors such as polyacrylonitrile (0042). They teach that PAN was thoroughly mixed with porous silicon particles by dry mixing of powders, where 0.5 g of porous silicon and 0.015 g of PAN were added to a mortar and pestle and ground together (0052). They teach heating in a furnace at 200°C for 1 hour and then 600°C for 1 hour followed by cooling to obtain porous silicon with a carbon coating (0052). They further teach that PAN was thoroughly mixed with porous silicon particles by dry mixing of powders, where 0.5 g of porous silicon and 0.015 g of PAN were added to a mortar and pestle and ground together (0052). They teach heating in a furnace at 200°C for 1 hour and then 600°C for 1 hour followed by cooling to obtain porous silicon with a carbon coating (0052). Therefore, Holt teaches mixing silicon and PAN in an amount where PAN is present at 2.9 weight % of the dry mixture. Holt teaches forming the carbon coating on the silicon for use as an anode material in lithium-ion batteries (abstract, 0003, and 0063).
From the teachings of Holt, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included PAN in an amount of 2.9% by weight of the dry mixture because Holt teaches that such an amount is suitable for forming a carbon coating on silicon particles by a vapor deposition process for use in a lithium-ion battery such that it will be expected to provide a suitable amount of PAN for forming the carbon coating in the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang. Therefore, the amount of PAN will be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Alternatively, according to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the PAN concentration to be within the claimed range by routine experimentation so as to provide a suitable amount of PAN for forming the carbon coating as desired.
Claim 22 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Zhamu, US 2020/0052325 A1.
Regarding claim 22, Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang suggest the process of claim 21. As noted above Wegener teaches using lithium hexafluorophosphate as an electrolyte (0190).
They do not teach that the anion of the salt is specifically PO43- or F- or one of the other listed salts.
Zhamu teaches a lithium-ion battery containing an anode, a cathode, a porous separator, and an electrolyte (abstract). They teach that the anode comprises silicon (0040-0041). They teach that the electrolyte comprises a lithium ion-conducting inorganic species or lithium salt selected from lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium borofluoride, lithium nitrate, etc. (0050).
From the teachings of Zhamu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang to have used lithium nitrate as the electrolyte as a simple substitution of one known electrolyte for another to yield the desired and predictable result of providing a suitable electrolyte for the lithium-ion battery. Therefore, in the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn, Yang, and Zhamu, the electrolyte of the lithium-ion battery will contain an inorganic salt in the form of an alkali metal nitrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered.
In light of the amendment to the claims, the previous 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Wegener, while Wegener teaches using PAN for the melting process, they also teach that the particles can be suitably coated by CVD and Rickborn and Yang provide the suggestion of using PAN as a solid CVD precursor, such that the modification is expected to provide a desirable, uniform, carbon coating.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over unexpected results, it is noted that comparative example 3 provides the coatings by melting the PAN coating. Comparative example 4 dissolves PAN and coats the particles with the solution, followed by drying. Then the Si/PAN powder is heated in the same manner as comparative example 3. Therefore, both comparative examples melt the PAN. It is noted that Yang provides heating the that material to the disassociation temperature without holding at a melting temperature. Further, Wegener teaches that the films can be coated using CVD and they can alternatively be coated with a carbon precursor such as PAN. Rickborn indicates that it is known to coat particles with PAN by a CVD process by mixing the powdered and particulate material as in the claimed process, where the materials are not held at a melting temperature before heating to the thermal decomposition temperature, where they indicate that CVD provides improved results compared to pyrolyzing or carbonizing an existing coating. Therefore, while the results of Table 1 show that the claimed process is improved compared to melting, since the prior art teaches that it is known to use a dry mixture for CVD of a solid PAN source for applying a carbon coating to particles and Wegener teaches applying a carbon coating to particles by CVD, the process is expected to also provide the claimed benefits. Specifically, while the claimed process indicates there are benefits to performing the CVD process compared to a melting process, the prior art suggests performing CVD and not just melting the material and then heating.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Yang using porous silicon in a solvent-based process, it is noted that the particles of Wegener are not indicated as being porous, where since they have a BET surface area within the range described in the specification and as previously claimed, they are considered to be non-porous. Further, Wegener teaches that their silicon particles can be coated by CVD, such that using the PAN CVD process suggested by Rickborn is expected to also provide desirable results. As to Yang using a solvent-based process, it is noted that Rickborn suggest mixing the dry materials. The particles used in the coating process are from Wegener, where Yang is relied upon to indicate that using PAN as a solid carbon source for CVD is desirable in battery applications. Additionally, there is no indication that Yang requires melting of the precursor. Yang refers to PAN as a solid carbon source that results in disassociation of the solid carbon source (0016 and 0020), suggesting that the solid source will sublime to provide the gaseous carbon precursor.
Regarding the particles of Rickborn not being suitable for battery applications, it is noted that in the process of Wegener in view of Rickborn and Yang, the particles used are those of Wegener, where Wegener is modified to form the carbon coating by CVD using PAN as a solid source, as suggested by Rickborn and Yang. Wegener teaches using the particles in lithium-ion battery anodes using a carbon coating and Rickborn provides a method of forming a carbon coating on particles by CVD. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the particles of Rickborn are not electrochemically active and the disclosure of Rickborn is directed to improving electrical conductivity and not electrochemical conductivity, it is noted that Wegener indicates it is desirable for the carbon-coated silicon particles to have high electrical conductivity (0114), indicating that improving the electrical conductivity of the particles is also desirable. Similarly, the instant specification also indicates that it is desirable for the particles to have a high electrical conductivity (pg. 17, lines 30-34). Further, since Wegener teaches depositing the carbon coatings using CVD and Rickborn provides a desirable CVD process using solid precursors such as PAN, the modification of Wegener to deposit the carbon coating using PAN as a solid source by CVD is also expected to provide desirable results.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the current case, Wegener teaches using grounded polysilicon particles that are not aggregated for lithium-ion battery anodes, where the particles are coated by carbon using CVD, where in an alternative process PAN is indicated as being a suitable source, Rickborn provides a CVD process of coating particles with carbon using PAN as a solid source, where the process provides a uniform coating and improved results over pyrolysis of an organic coating, and Yang teaches that PAN is a suitable CVD carbon source for coating particles in battery application. Therefore, the suggestion is to modify Wegener to deposited the carbon coating using a solid PAN source by CVD as in the process of Rickborn with the expectation of forming a desirable and uniform carbon coating on the particles.
In response to applicant's argument that Rickborn is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Rickborn is considered to be in Applicant’s field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved. Specifically, Rickborn is classified in C23C16/26, as is the instant invention. Further Rickborn is directed to providing carbon coating on particles by CVD of solid sources such as PAN, where the claimed process is also directed to forming carbon coating on particles by CVD using PAN as a solid source. While the claim indicates that the particles are used in batteries, the claim also required CVD of a carbon film on particles, such that the field of endeavor is also considered to include CVD of carbon coatings on particles. Therefore, while Rickborn is forming electrically conductive coatings on refractory particles as to electrode active materials, since the process is directed to CVD of carbon coatings and the instant specification also indicates that it is desirable for the particles to have electrical conductivity, the reference is considered to be in Applicant’s field of endeavor. Additionally, the problem with which the inventor was concerned is considered to be providing desirable carbon coatings on particles, where Rickborn provides such a process.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Holt uses agglomerated, porous Si-based particles, which do not contain elemental silicon but instead use silicon suboxide, it is noted that the claimed particles are provided by Wegener, where Holt is relied upon for the suggestion of the amount of PAN to use in a dry mixture of particles for forming a carbon coating. As to the method of coating the particles, this is suggested by Rickborn and Yang. The process of Holt mixes the particles with solid PAN as a dry mixture, followed by heating to provide the carbon coating, which is similar to the claimed process.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of IGTPAN, the reference was relied upon as a evidentiary reference to indicate that the process of Rickborn will not include melting of the PAN carbon source.
As to Zhamu, the reference was relied upon for the suggestion of using lithium nitrate as a known electrolyte. Wegener provides the non-porous, microscale carbon-coated Si particles in lithium-ion batteries, where Rickborn provides a desirably carbon coating using PAN as a solid source for CVD to provide an electrically conductive and uniform carbon coating, where Yang indicates that PAN CVD coatings are desirable for battery applications.
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 CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718