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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Shaw (WO-2019143531-A1) is newly applied.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shaw (US-20200280050-A1) (application date 2019-01-11).
Regarding claim 5, Shaw discloses a method of making an electrode for use in an energy storage device (see e.g., Shaw; [0078]-[0079], regarding the examples wherein the active material is formed into an electrode, fig. 2, [0071]-[0074], regarding the method of forming the active material) comprising: providing an active material layer comprising silicon and a polymer binder (see e.g., Shaw; [0071], regarding micro-sized Si particles mixed with PAN, polyacrylonitrile, particles corresponding to a polymer binder); and sintering the active material layer to carbonize at least a portion of the polymer binder (see e.g., Shaw; [0060], [0075], regarding heating carbonization step at 500-1000 °C to convert PAN to carbon shells); and treating the active material layer with an etchant, wherein the etchant comprises an alkaline etchant (see e.g., Shaw; [0061], [0065], [0066]-[0067], [0076], table 1, regarding chemical etching which is preferably NaOH, which is an alkaline etchant, because it is safer [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Shaw disclose 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., Shaw; [0078], regarding mixing Si particles to form electrode slurry, and coating the slurry onto copper foil).
Regarding claim 14, Shaw discloses an electrode formed by the process of claim 5 (see e.g., Shaw; [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Shaw discloses the electrode of claim 14. Shaw discloses in the carbonization process converts PAN into carbon shells (see e.g., Shaw; [0075]), and further confirms that the PAN is converted to carbon by Raman spectroscopy (see e.g., [0076], fig. 5), which corresponds with the claimed the active material layer substantially free of polymer binders.
Regarding claim 16, Shaw discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the etchant comprises sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (see above regarding claim 5) (see e.g., Shaw; [0067], table 1).
Regarding claim 17, Shaw discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the etchant has a concentration of about 0.5 M to 1.OM (see e.g., Shaw; [0061], regarding 0.5-1.0 M NaOH).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US-20200280050-A1) (application date 2019-01-11), and in further view of Tour (US-20170062821-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shaw discloses the method of claim 5. Shaw 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 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]). 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 Shaw 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 Shaw teaches the method of claim 6. Shaw does not explicitly disclose further comprising 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 use the laser beam disclosed by Tour to scan successive position on the active material layer of Shaw 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 Shaw teaches the method of claim 6. Shaw does not explicitly disclose wherein 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 comprises controlling the beam to maintain the 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. 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 high annealing temperatures (see e.g., Tour [0114]), 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]). 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 Shaw 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]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (WO-2019143531-A1), Tour (US-20170062821-A1), and further in view of Kasuya (US-20190003073-A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 6. Shaw 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 Shaw 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 Shaw for a rectangular-shaped electrode.
Regarding claim 9, modified Shaw teaches the method of claim 8. Shaw does not explicitly disclose further comprising 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 Shaw 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 Shaw teaches the method of claim 9. Shaw does not explicitly disclose wherein advancing the active material layer comprises 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 Shaw 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]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US-20200280050-A1) (application date 2019-01-11), and in further view of Guo (CN-110649236-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 12, Shaw discloses the method of claim 5. Shaw discloses wherein Si particles are coated with carbon at nanoscale (see e.g., Shaw; [0027], fig. 4a-b, [0049], [0052], [0055], [0060], [0062], [0071]), which corresponds with the claimed active material layer containing at least one form of nanoscopic carbon. Shaw does not explicitly disclose wherein the active material layer contains silicon oxide. However, Guo discloses wherein an active material layer contains silicon oxide (see e.g., Guo; [0010], [0012], [0013], [0024], [0029], [0032], [0048], regarding silicon oxide). Guo is further analogous art because Guo discloses 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). 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 Si particles disclosed by Shaw by including silicon oxide as disclosed by Guo in order to solve the problems of poor cycle performance, poor rate performance and low coulombic efficiency (see e.g., Guo; [0011]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights