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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 07/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 10 are withdrawn.
Claim 5 is amended.
Claim 8 is cancelled.
Claims 11-13 are new.
Claims 5-7, 9, and 11-13 are examined on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains 163 words. . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5-7, 9, 11-13 are 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 5 recites the limitation "the entire composite material " in lines 4 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear is the entire composite material is equivalent to a silicon-carbon negative electrode material, or a compound having a structure in which silicon crystals are distributed in silicon oxide, or if the entire composite material refers to something else, such as electrode material, which could encompass additional additives.
Claims 6-7, 9, 11-13 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wet grinding device" in lines 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which claims “a grinding device”.
Claim 6 contains the limitation “a mass ratio of the silicon powder raw material to a dispersant”. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which requires a silicon powder raw material, a grinding aid into an organic solvent. It is unclear if the dispersant in claim 6 is the same as a grinding aid in claim 5 or if it is an additional component.
Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitations "a median particle diameter of 1-100 um”, “a mass ratio of the silicon powder raw material to a dispersant is 100:(1-20)”, and “the solid content of a mixed solution is 10%-40%”, and the claim also recites "preferably 3-20 um”, “preferably 100:(5-15)”, and “preferably 20%-30%”, which are the respective narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation " a hot air inlet temperature of 150-300°C" and "an outlet temperature of 80-140°C", and the claim also recites "preferably 160-280°C" and "preferably 90-130°C" which are the respective narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the deposition process of the gas phase carbon source" in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 5 which recites merely recites “covering by a gas-phase carbon source” and “in a vapor deposition furnace”.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation "t" in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends from claim 5 which recites “a gas-phase carbon source” but does not reference an organic carbon source gas.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation "the mass content of the oxygen element is 5%-30%”, and the claim also recites "preferably 10%-20%" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “the negative electrode material has a specific surface area of 1-20 m2/g", and "the negative electrode material has a median particle diameter D50 of 1-30 um", "the moisture content of the negative electrode material is 0.01 - 1wt%", and "the negative electrode material has a tap density of 0.3-1.4 g/cm3" , and the claim also recites "preferably 2-10 m2/g", "preferably 3-20 um", "preferably 0.05-0.5wt%", and "preferably 0.5-1.0 g/cm3" which are the respective narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Oh et al. (US 20180090750 A1) hereinafter “Oh” in view of Kamo et al. (US20170288216A1) hereinafter “Kamo” in further view of Choi et al. (US 20220259050 A1) hereinafter “Choi”.
Regarding claim 5, Oh teaches a method for preparing a silicon-carbon negative electrode material (abstract; [0055]-[0063]) for a lithium-ion battery, wherein: the silicon-carbon negative electrode material comprises nano-silicon and a gas-phase carbon source ([0027]; [0009]; [0038]; [0063]) wherein the nano-silicon is dispersed in the entire composite material ([0041]) a part of a surface of the nano-silicon is covered by a vapor-deposited carbon source ([0063]) the nano-silicon is detected by using a Mastersizer 3000 particle size analyzer, and a median particle diameter D50 is 100 nm or below ([0025]; [0048]); the nano-silicon is analyzed by using an X-ray diffraction pattern, and according to a half-peak width of a diffraction peak near 2θ = 28.4 which pertains to Si(111) ([0044]); the grain size of the nano-silicon is calculated by using a Scherrer formula to be 10nm or below ([0024]; [0024]) the method comprising the following steps: mechanical shaping: mechanically shaping the dry nano-silicon powder ([0056]), and covering by a gas-phase carbon source: placing silicon particles in a vapor deposition furnace, introducing a protective gas, then introducing a carbon source gas, and heating to deposit the gas-phase carbon source to cover the nano-silicon particles, so as to obtain the silicon-carbon negative electrode material ([062]-[0064]; [0074]), wherein the mechanical shaping step comprises pulverizing ([0056]).
Oh is silent as to an average thickness of the vapor-deposited carbon source.
However, Kamo teaches a method for preparing a silicon-carbon negative electrode material ([0027]) for a lithium ion battery, wherein: the silicon-carbon negative electrode material comprises nano-silicon and a gas-phase carbon source; the nano-silicon is dispersed in the entire composite material, a part of a surface of the nano- silicon is covered by a vapor-deposited carbon source ([0028]; [0126]; [0046]), the nano-silicon is analyzed by using an X-ray diffraction pattern, and according to a half-peak width of a diffraction peak near 20 = 28.4° which pertains to Si(111), the grain size of the nano- silicon is calculated by using a Scherrer formula to be 10 nm or below ([0111]; [0198]); the entire composite material is scanned by a TEM, and an average thickness of the vapor-deposited carbon source is measured to be 10-200 nm ([0044]; [0127]; [0199]), the method comprising the following steps: mechanical shaping: mechanically shaping the silicon powder ([0151]), and covering by a gas-phase carbon source: placing the silicon particles in a vapor deposition furnace, introducing a protective gas, then introducing a carbon source gas, and heating to deposit the gas-phase carbon source to cover the nano-silicon particles, so as to obtain the silicon-carbon negative electrode material ([0152]-[0153]). Kamo teaches that an appropriate thickness allows sufficient conductivity, improved battery performance, and improve energy density ([0127]).
Oh does not teach the method comprising the following steps: (1) preparation of nano-silicon slurry: adding a silicon powder raw material and a grinding aid into an organic solvent, uniformly mixing, and then introducing the mixture into a grinding device for grinding for 30-60 h to obtain the nano-silicon slurry; (2) atomization and drying: atomizing and drying the nano-silicon slurry in step (1) by a spray dryer to obtain dry nano-silicon powder; and wherein a mechanical shaping step (3) comprises pulverizing, grading, and sieving, comprising the following specific process steps: treating the dry nano-silicon powder obtained in step (2) by a pulverizer, adjusting strength of a main machine to 30-50 Hz, adjusting grading strength to 30-50 Hz, so that the particle size of the dry nano-silicon powder is reduced, removing fine powder by grading, and sieving the powder to remove large particles, wherein a sieve has 100-400 meshes, so that the dry nano-silicon powder with concentrated particle size distribution and regular morphology is obtained.
However, Choi teaches a method of preparing a silicon composite comprising forming a silicon solution by wet-grinding silicon raw material, forming silicon fine powder by spray drying the silicon solution, disintegrating the silicon powder, forming a dispersion by coating the silicon fine powder with a first pitch, forming a first composite by coating the dispersion with a second pitch, and forming a second composite by carbonizing the first composite ([0007]-[0011]; [0036]). Choi teaches that raw material high purity silicon powder is mixed with balls and a solvent and then wet grinding is performed ([0040]-[0048]). Choi teaches that silicon fine powder is formed by spray drying a silicon solution where an inlet temperature is 100-250℃ to produce silicon nano particles with a particle size of 100-400nm ([0049]-[0053]).
Oh, Kamo, and Choi fail to explicitly disclose or suggest the combination of “adding a silicon powder raw material and a grinding aid into an organic solvent, uniformly mixing, and then introducing the mixture into a grinding device for grinding for 30-60 h to obtain the nano-silicon slurry” (emphasis added) and “mechanically shaping the dry nano-silicon powder in step (2) to obtain nano-silicon particles with concentrated particle size distribution and regular morphology;…..wherein the mechanical shaping in step (3) comprises pulverizing, grading, and sieving, the following specific process steps: treating the dry nano-silicon powder obtained in step (2) by a pulverizer, adjusting strength of a main machine to 30-50 Hz, adjusting grading strength to 30-50 Hz, so that the particle size of the dry nano-silicon powder is reduced, removing fine powder by grading, and sieving the powder to remove large particles, wherein a sieve has 100-400 meshes, so that the dry nano-silicon powder with concentrated particle size distribution and regular morphology is obtained”. Nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art according to these limitations because no motivation to do so could be found.
With regards to claims 6-7, 9, 11-13, these claims contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haufe et al (US 20180212234 A1) teaches a silicon anode material for a lithium-ion battery (abstract) wherein unaggregated silicon particles with a desired particle size distribution are readily obtainable by milling processes ([0057]) where the milling process is a wet milling process ([0058]-[0062]).
Kondo et al. (US20170012282A) teaches an active material including: a first active material that contains a nano silicon and a second active material that contains a graphite, is used in a negative electrode (abstract), where the silicon is nano-silicon with a particles size of 5-20nm ([0064]), a crystallite size of 1-50nm ([0073]; [0267]), and the silicon material has a carbon coating layer with a thickness of 1-100nm ([0103]; [0024]).
Yue Min et al. (CN104638237A) teaches a silicon oxide composite material ([0002]) wherein the silicon crystal grain size is 2-15nm ([0025]) and the thickness of the carbon coating is 5-125nm ([0027]) wherein the process comprises placing silicon oxide in a reactor and heat treating; crushing, pulverizing, and classifying the modified silicon oxide; and placing the silicon oxide in a rotary kiln for vapor phase carbon coating ([0036]-[0040]). Cited on the IDS filed 9/16/2022, reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Xiao Chengmao et al. (CN 106328909 B) teaches a method of producing nano-silica-silicone-based composite material comprising a carbon substrate and composite particles evenly scattered in the carbon substrate (abstract).
Zaghib et al. (US 9559355 B2) teaches a method for preparing a particular silicon material at least partially coated with conductive carbon; the method comprising dry grinding silicon particles to obtain micrometer size particles, wet grinding the micrometer size particles with a stabilizing agent to obtain nanometer size particles, drying the nanometer size particles, coating the particles with carbon (column 5 lines 35-58).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728