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 with traverse of group V, claims 5-15, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions of claims 1-15 have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example, the different fields of search would require different classes/subclasses such as H01M4/366, H01M4/0404, H01M4/386, H01M4/587, Y02E60/10, H01G11/24, H01G11/28, H01G11/30, H01G11/86, H01M4/134, H01M4/1395, and H01G11/36. Moreover, search queries for claim 1 regarding a product of a carbon shell encapsulating nanoform silicon and void space and, contrastingly, claim 5 regarding a method for making an electrode with silicon and polymer binder, would result in undue search burden from the broadness of differences between the subjects. Moreover, independent claims 2-4 provide other divergent subject matter such as combining nanoform silicon with a carbon precursor and sintering, an electrode wherein an encapsulated form of silicon is dispersed in a binder-free network and on a current collector, and an energy storage device.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “roll to role” should be spelled “roll to roll”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo (CN-110649236-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 5, Guo discloses
a method of making an electrode for use in an energy storage device (see e.g., Guo; [0010], regarding the porous silicon-carbon composite material for an anode in a lithium-ion battery) comprising: providing an active material layer comprising silicon and a polymer binder (see e.g., Guo; [0019]-[0020], regarding step 2 wherein the silicon-based material is mixed with binders, [0036], regarding the list of possible binders used in step 2, which are all polymer binders comprising of repeating structural units, [0084]-[0101], regarding preparation examples which use polymer binder sodium carboxymethyl cellulose); and sintering the active material layer to carbonize at least a portion of the polymer binder (see e.g., Guo; [0021], [0041], regarding sintering and carbonizing the binder to bond silicon-based material and carbon-based material together, [0084], regarding example including carbonization).
Regarding claim 12, Guo discloses the method of claim 5. Guo further discloses wherein the active material layer contains silicon oxide (see e.g., Guo; [0010], [0012], [0013], [0024], [0029], [0032], [0048], regarding silicon oxide), and at least one form of nanoscopic carbon (see e.g., Guo; [0014], regarding the carbon material may include carbon materials such as carbon nanotubes or carbon nanowires, [0032], wherein regardless of the chosen carbon material, the particle size of the material including the carbon is milled to a “nanometer level”, [0101], regarding example 8 which is produced with the method of instant claim 5, and includes silicon oxide [0070], and is milled to a particle size of 500 nm which is in the nanoscopic scale).
Regarding claim 13, Guo discloses the method of claim 5, wherein providing the active material layer comprises forming a slurry, applying the slurry to form a coating on a substrate (see e.g., Guo; [0111], wherein the slurry is coated onto a copper foil current collector corresponding to a substrate).
Regarding claim 14, Guo discloses an electrode formed by the process of claim 5 (see e.g., Guo; [0111], wherein the resulting slurry on current collector forms an electrode used in the battery).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN-110649236-A) (see translation) as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Tour (US-20170062821-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Guo discloses the method of claim 5.
Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein sintering the active material layer comprises: applying a laser beam to the active material layer to heat a localized region of the active material layer to carbonize at least a portion of the polymer binder.
However, Tour discloses wherein sintering the active material layer comprises: applying a laser beam to the active material layer to heat a localized region of the active material layer to carbonize at least a portion of the polymer binder (see e.g., Tour; fig. 1, [0083], regarding exposing polymer to laser source to form graphene, [0006], regarding the different types of laser sources which correspond with the claimed laser beam). Tour is analogous art because Tour similarly discloses overlapping high annealing temperatures (see e.g., Tour [0114] and Guo [0041]), and Tour further discloses wherein the carbonized polymer which turns to graphene may be doped with silicon (see e.g., Tour; [0137]) and similar polymer binders (see e.g., Tour; [0107]), and Guo discloses that a dynamic sintering process may be used (see e.g., Guo; [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a laser beam as disclosed by Tour for the polymer carbonization process of Guo in order to have a straightforward synthesis process, provide the option of patterning, and achieve commercialized microscale energy storage devices (see e.g., Tour; [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Guo teaches the method of claim 6. Guo does not explicitly disclose scanning the laser beam to successive positions on the active material layer. However, Tour discloses scanning the laser beam to successive positions on a layer (see e.g., Tour; [0008]-[0009], regarding the different embodiments of scanning the laser beam to form graphene and thereby carbonize the polymer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the laser beam disclosed by Tour to scan successive position on the active material layer of Guo in order to have a straightforward synthesis process, provide the option of patterning, and achieve commercialized microscale energy storage devices (see e.g., Tour; [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Guo teaches the method of any claim 6. Modified Guo above with Tour teaches the application of a laser beam for carbonization.
Guo discloses wherein the carbonization temperature applied to the active material layer to heat a localized region of the active material layer to carbonize at least a portion of the polymer binder comprises a temperature of preferably 500-700°C (see e.g., Guo; [0041]), which corresponds with the claimed temperature of in the localized region above the carbonization temperature of the polymer binder, but below a temperature at which the active material or an underlying substrate would be damaged. Guo discloses this temperature specifically carbonizes the binder to bond the silicon-based material and the carbon-based material (see e.g., Guo; [0041]), and does not disclose that the underlying substrate would be damaged but rather the performance of the electrode and battery is improved (see e.g., Guo; table 1, [0116]).
Regarding claim 15, Guo discloses the electrode of claim 14. Guo discloses the sintering and carbonization process of the polymer binder (see e.g., Guo; [0041]). Guo does not explicitly disclose how much of the polymer binder is carbonized such that the active material layer may be substantially free of polymer binders. However, Tour discloses wherein the laser beam carbonization process of the polymer is such that the entire polymer is converted into graphene (see e.g., Tour; [0009], [0125]), which corresponds to making the layer free of polymer binder. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have carbonized all of the polymer as disclosed by Tour such that the layer of Guo is free of polymer binder in order to bond the silicon and carbon materials together (see e.g., Guo; [0041]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN-110649236-A) (see translation) and Tour (US-20170062821-A1), and further in view of Kasuya (US-20190003073-A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Guo teaches the method of claim 6. Guo does not explicitly disclose wherein applying a laser beam to the active material layer comprises applying a sheet shaped beam, and wherein the localized region comprises a strip across a major surface of the active material layer.
However, Kasuya discloses a manufacturing method wherein a laser is applied to aluminum to remove a coating, wherein the shape of the laser beam may be adjusted to be a desired shape such as a rectangular shape by passing the laser beam through a filter (see e.g., Kasuya; [0074]). Kasuya is analogous art because Kasuya discloses that the method may be applied to energy storage devices, positive electrodes, and negative electrodes (see e.g., Kasuya; [0156]-[0164]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the laser beam disclosed of modified Guo with Tour to be a rectangular shape as disclosed by Kasuya. Kasuya discloses that the shape of the laser beam may be adjusted to the desired shape in order to remove the coating in the desired shape (see e.g., Kasuya; [0074]-[0075]), so one of ordinary skill in the art may similarly choose a rectangular shaped laser beam to carbonize the polymer of Guo for a rectangular-shaped electrode.
Regarding claim 9, modified Guo teaches the method of claim 8. Guo does not explicitly disclose advancing the active material layer in a direction transverse to the sheet shaped beam to expose successive regions of the active material layer to the beam. However, Kasuya discloses that a stage may be driven vertically or horizontally transverse to the laser beam to expose surfaces of the aluminum material (see e.g., Kasuya; [0075]). Similarly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have driven the material of Guo vertically or horizontally on a stage such that the successive regions of the material are exposed to the beam in order to carbonize desired parts of the polymer such as a surface, a pattern on the surface, or both surfaces (see e.g., Tour; [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Guo teaches the method of claim 9. Guo does not explicitly disclose advancing the active material layer comprising a continuous roll to roll process. However, Tour discloses that the process may be applied to a continuous roll to roll process (see e.g., Tour; [0182]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a roll to roll manufacturing process as disclosed by Tour for advancing the active material layer of Guo in order to carbonize desired parts of the polymer such as a surface, a pattern on the surface, or both surfaces (see e.g., Tour; [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728